Trump and Gabbard vs the lunatics that have taken over America’s foreign policy asylum

The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. ~ Henry A. Wallace

The lunatics surrounding Trump have been embedded in America’s foreign policy apparatus for a very long, long time.  The same foreign policy blunders are repeated in administration after administration regardless of which party is in power for there is only one party, the war party.  Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 after he took on the empire’s endless wars for profit, promising to end the stupid, pointless, costly and deadly wars. 

Trump hasn’t been able to overcome the lunatics in the war party and their dual citizenship “experts” in the State Department, Intelligence agencies and a myriad of agencies who have become permanent fixtures in America’s foreign policy asylum. 

Barack Obama was Empire’s candidate in 2008.  John McCain’s candidacy was for show only as both parties backed Obama who had a long family history of serving empire and had deep ties to the CIA.  Obama immediately refused to take public financing, something no candidate has done since the Watergate scandal revealed the lawlessness of private financing of presidential campaigns.    Obama soon received a billion dollars in campaign funds, over $300 million in October of 2008 in small donations of $200 or less in prepaid credit cards.

Obama’s State Department and foreign policy team was embedded with many of the same lunatics that were brought in during the George W. Bush Administration.  During the 2016 presidential campaign Donald Trump was relentlessly attacked and accused of being a “Russian agent” largely for debunking the Empire approved narrative of Russia being an eminent threat to America. 

Tulsi Gabbard is the new anti-endless war candidate.  During the Democratic Party’s primary debate sponsored by Deep State handmaiden CNN, Tulsi Gabbard took on the Empire’s darling Kamala Harris and eviscerated her revealing Harris’ true record of service to the Deep State.  

From Tom Luongo at Strategic Culture:

Excerpt:

The Empire Is Coming for Tulsi Gabbard

The second debate among Democratic hopefuls was notable for two things. The lack of common decency of most of them and Tulsi Gabbard’s immense, career-ending attack on Kamala Harris’ (D-Deep State) record as an Attorney General in California.

Harris came out of the first debate the clear winner and Gabbard cut her down to size with one of the single best minutes of political television since Donald Trump told Hillary Clinton, “Because you’d be in jail.” 

Gabbard’s takedown of Harris was so spot on and her closing statement about the irresponsible nature of the Trump Administration’s foreign policy was so powerful she had to be actively suppressed on Twitter.  And, within minutes of the debate ending the media and the political machines moved into overdrive to smear her as a Russian agent, an Assad apologist and a favorite of the alt-right.

Now, folks, let me tell you something. I write and talk about Gabbard a lot and those to the right of me are really skeptical of her being some kind of plant for Israel or the establishment. If she were truly one of those she wouldn’t have been polling at 1% going into that debate.  She would have been promoted as Harris’ strongest competition and served up for Harris to co-opt.

That is not what happened.

No, the fact that Gabbard is being smeared as viciously and baselessly as she is by all the right people on both the left and the right is all the proof you need that she is 1) the real deal and 2) they are scared of her.  When Lindsey Graham tweets about Tulsi Gabbard twice after a debate, when the Washington Post neocons like Josh Rogin are attacking her, you know she’s got their panties in a bunch.

You expect it from the Harris camp, obviously. But when it comes directly from people like Navid Jamali (double agent, navy intelligence, MSNBC contributor) you know the empire is beginning to get worried…

In the past week she’s destroyed Kamala Harris on national TV, sued Google for electioneering and signed onto Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What does she do next week, end the Drug War?

Tulsi Gabbard is admittedly a work in progress. But what I see in her is something that has the potential to be very special. She’s young enough to be both passionately brave and willing to go where the truth takes her.  And that truth has taken her where Democrats have feared to tread for more than forty years: the US Empire.

The entire time I was growing up the prevailing wisdom was Social Security was the third rail of US politics. That, like so many other pearls of wisdom, was nonsense.  The true third rail of US politics is empire. Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it’s quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC.

That is Gabbard’s crime. And it’s the only crime that matters.

When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against the threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to their authority on foreign policy.  Foreign policy, by the way, that most people in America, frankly, despise…

If she doesn’t begin climbing in the polls then the Democrats are lost. They will have signed onto crazy Progressivism and more Empire in their lust to destroy Donald Trump. But they will lose because only a principled anti-imperialist like Gabbard can push Trump back to his days when he was the outsider in the GOP debates, railing against our stupid foreign policy.

No one else in the field would be remotely credible on this point. It’s the area where Trump is the weakest. He’s not weak on women’s rights, racism, gay rights or any of the rest of the idiotic identity politics of the rest of the Democratic field.

He’s weakest on the one issue that got him elected in the first place, foreign policy. Hillary was the candidate of Empire. Trump was not. It’s why we saw an international conspiracy formed to destroy him and his presidency. Now that same apparatus is mobilized against Tulsi Gabbard.

That’s good. As a solider she knows that when you’re taking flak you are over your target. Now let’s hope she’s capable of sustaining herself to push this election cycle away from the insanity the elite want to distract us with and make it about the only thing keeping the world from healing, ending the empire of chaos.

Unfortunately the debates are controlled by the corrupt Democratic National Committee who controls which candidates are allowed on the stage for the debates.  You can be sure Tulsi Gabbard will have a tough time qualifying for the September debates after her truth telling performance.  No doubt the candidate that will capture the nomination will be a compliant Deep State lackey that will continue on with Empire just as Obama did.  From Paul Craig Roberts:

Excerpt:

Obama: Front Man for Washington’s Imperialism

Clarity Press is a good publisher for authors willing to provide real information in place of the officially sanctioned controlled explanations of our time. A current example is Jeremy Kuzmarov’s assessment of Obama, Obama’s Unending Wars. The forty-fourth president comes across as a successful front man for corporate rule and Washington’s imperialism. 

Obama was the “drone king” whose regime bombed 7 Muslim countries, overthrew the democratic government in Hondurus, overthrew and murdered Gaddafi,  tried to do the same thing to Assad in Syria, overthrew the democratic government in Ukraine and demonized Russia and the Russian president, tried to undermine and overthrow the democratically elected Latin American presidents Morales, Chavez, and Ortega, constantly lied through his teeth, and met with the approval of the military/security complex and global capitalists. 

Topping off these criminal events, Obama’s regime adopted the policy of murdering US citizens on suspicion alone without due process of law.  Execution orders were issued every Tuesday as Obama with CIA director John Brennan at his side chose presumed terrorists from mug shots and biographies prepared by no one knows who. “Some were just teenagers like a young girl who looked ‘less than her seventeen years.’”

In the name of preventing atrocities, the Obama regime committed mass atrocities.  One consequence was a massive flow of refugees into the US and its empire of peoples who have every reason to hate Americans, Europeans, Australians and Canadians for sending soldiers and bombs to destroy their homes and murder and maim their family members.

Obama was the perfect front man for a cruel empire. Being partly black, he could be presented as humanitarian and considerate of the dark-skinned peoples the George W. Bush regime had ground under the American boot.  Being a one-term senator from Illinois, he had no following and no independent political base, and thus had no ability to stand up to powerful organized interest groups.  Installed in office, he delivered the violence and mayhem that the ruling oligarchs wanted as they destroyed independent governments, controlled oil flows, and sought to establish Washington’s and Israel’s hegemony over the Middle East.

Kuzmarov’s report on Obama fits the model of Washington intervention that many have reported.  For example, General Smedley Butler:  John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, and Stephen Kinzer, The Brothers.  The difference is that Obama was very much aware that he was fronting for the ruling establishment, whereas General Butler initially thought he was defending American interests rather than the interests of the New York banks and United Fruit Company.  Perkins thought he was helping the countries targeted by the projects for which he worked, and the Dulles brothers operated independently of presidents.  Obama knew who he was serving and suffered no self-deception.

Donald Trump attempted to reassert the independence of the presidency and found himself framed on Russiagate charges.  It will be interesting to see if the authority of the office can be restored or whether henceforth the president will be a puppet of the Establishment.

The two parties are very good at gaming the system, and they were irate when Trump beat them to become the Republican candidate, then president.  Trump is anything but compliant. 

The lunatics in America’s foreign policy asylum have been gunning for war with Iran for ages, Ronald Reagan managed to avert war after the 1983 false flag attack in Lebanon that killed 241 American military personnel.  From Checkpoint Asia:

Excerpt:

1984: The Year America Didn’t Go to War With Iran After a Civil War in Reagan Admin

As tensions between the U.S. and Iran spiked this last June, Maureen Dowd, the imitable New York Times columnist, wrote that “the man” standing between the U.S. and another war in the Middle East wasn’t a part of the Trump Administration’s foreign policy team, but Fox News television host Tucker Carlson.

Disturbed that Mr. Trump’s actions on Iran might touch off a nasty bloodletting, Carlson (as we are reliably told), privately advised the president against hitting Iran. And so a popular (if slightly exaggerated) fable has taken hold: surrounded by a gaggle of his own experts, and with U.S. bombers poised to destroy Iranian military assets, Trump decided to reject their advice, and listen to Carlson. The bombers were recalled, war averted—and the president returned to his Twitter account. Phew.

Dowd, and many of the rest of us, were gobsmacked. While decrying the lights-camera-action society that has brought us to this pass (a talking heads foreign policy is, it seems, the predictable result of a talking heads culture), Dowd ended her column thusly: “Carlson is pointing out something that Trump needs to hear,” she wrote. “The very people — in some cases, literally the same people who lured us into the Iraq quagmire 16 years ago — are demanding a new war, this one with Iran.”

Of course, this wasn’t the first time that America actually chose not to go to war, but the decision is rare enough that pointing out when it has happened before, and why, is worth noting —particularly as it involves Iran. 

In October of 1983, a truck filled with explosives leveled the four-story U.S. Marine Barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 American military personnel. The intelligence community laid responsibility for the act at the feet of Tehran’s mullahs, who’d tasked Hezbollah, their proxy in Lebanon, with pushing the U.S. (which had deployed the Marines as part of a multinational peacekeeping mission) out of the region. The incident (the largest non-nuclear explosion since World War Two, as we were told at the time), touched off a legendary internal Reagan Administration dispute over how, and whether, the U.S. should retaliate.

As debates go, this was a take-no-prisoners donnybrook: on the one side was the outwardly soft-spoken and professorial Secretary of State George Shultz (in fact, he was a nasty infighter whose sneering personnel evaluations could end careers), and on the other Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, a craggy and confrontational workaholic beloved by the military’s most senior leaders. Even before the dust had settled in Beirut, Shultz and Weinberger were weighing in with Reagan on what to do about it—-with Shultz arguing for a full military response, while a shrugging and seemingly detached Weinberger dragged his feet.

The Secretary of Defense had opposed the deployment of the Marines to begin with, and had the support of the military. Colin Powell, Weinberger’s senior military assistant, spoke for many of the military’s leaders when he described the Lebanon deployment “goofy from the beginning.”

For Shultz, however, revisiting the deployment decision was a waste of time. In a series of knock-down-drag-outs that pitted him against Weinberger, the Secretary of State argued that “American credibility” (that old standby), was being tested and that, therefore, the deaths of 241 U.S. Marines was cause enough for a military escalation.

Weinberger disagreed: “retaliation against who?” he asked. Slow-rolling the president, he argued that the U.S. needed better intelligence before deciding who to punish. Weinberger was adamant: the U.S. had just left one unwinnable conflict (in Vietnam), and shouldn’t be so quick to start another. He dug in.

On November 17, in an incident that remains controversial, Weinberger seems to have actually disregarded a presidential order for a retaliation. The operation, against Iranian-linked military assets, never came off — though it remains unclear, more than thirty years later, just who was responsible for stopping the operation. Reagan’s national security adviser, Robert McFarlane, was livid — shouting at Weinberger during a telephone conversation that he’d ignored the president’s direct order. Weinberger disagreed: he’d received no such order, he calmly explained.

Less than one month later, the debate between Shultz and Weinberger had become so ugly, so personal, that the Defense Secretary was openly mocking Secretary of State Shultz’s original support for the U.S. deployment. During one White House meeting, Weinberger implied that if Shultz had not done so, the Marines would still be alive.

Shultz turned on him: “Never let me ask for the Marines again,” he said, disdainfully. “If I do, shoot me.” Weinberger, it seems, was willing to accommodate him: “It is easy to kill people, and that might make some people feel good, but military force must have a purpose, to achieve some end,” he later, pointedly, explained. “We never had the fidelity on who perpetrated that horrendous act.”

The Shultz-Weinberger tilt dragged on until February of 1984, when Reagan decided to “redeploy” the Marines to U.S. ships on station in the Mediterranean. The “redeployment” was seen by Shultz as an ignominious retreat, a sign of American weakness. But, as capably rendered by Marine Colonel and historian David Crist in The Twilight War, that’s not the way the Pentagon viewed it.

Crist quotes senior defense official Noel Koch as defending the redeployment during a White House meeting that included Reagan’s top advisers—including Shultz. The problem with American policy in the Middle East, Koch implied, was American hypocrisy—and our selective use of the word terrorism: when our friends plant bombs we say it’s because they’re defending our values, but when our enemies do it, it’s terrorism.

Shultz snapped: “I couldn’t disagree more,” he responded. The problem wasn’t America’s hypocrisy, it was its lack of will, its weakness—which only encouraged Iran and other terrorists. If that debate sounds familiar, it’s because it is; it rages, on and off, to this day.

In one sense, the Shultz-Weinberger clash should not come as a surprise. While Weinberger was a Harvard-educated lawyer, his formative experience came in World War II, where he served as an infantry officer during the 1942 Battle of Buna—a fetid, leech-infested Japanese base on the rim of northern New Guinea. For those who survived, including Weinberger, the swamp-slogging battle was an unrelenting nightmare: at its end, the Japanese resorted to cannibalism and used the bodies of the dead to reinforce their defenses.

Though Weinberger rarely talked about Buna, the experience stayed with him. During an interview I conducted with him when he was defense secretary, he nearly laughed me out of the room when I suggested that the military budget increases he proposed made war more likely. “You don’t get it,” he said. “We’re not buying more guns because we intend to use them, we’re buying more guns so we don’t have to.”

Weinberger’s favorite military officer, J.C.S. Chairman John Vessey, agreed. Vessey was no shrinking violet. While Weinberger was battling Shultz, Vessey took on Robert McFarlane, Reagan’s interventionist National Security Advisor. Lashing out at the perpetrators of the Marine Barracks bombing, Vessey believed, was unbecoming of a great power. It was “beneath our dignity.” He would know.

Like Weinberger, Vessey joined the Army as a private, but was made an officer during the invasion of Anzio, the beachhead on Italy’s western coast where the German Wehrmacht battled the Americans to a standstill. Like Buna, Anzio was a charnel house and Vessey was lucky to survive. From Anzio, Vessey made his way to the top of the heap — from Private to General, a nearly unprecedented feat…

Of course, there are any number of obvious differences between that time and this one, between the Reagan White House and the Trump Administration—not the least of which is that Weinberger and Shultz were not only experienced and sometimes exasperating infighters, but were acknowledged foreign policy giants. As was John Vessey. Then too, and crucially, Weinberger and Vessey had “seen the elephant”– as the military saying has it — at Buna and Anzio.

That’s not true for Mike Pompeo, or for Mark Esper, the newly designated Secretary of Defense; and it’s certainly not true for John Bolton who, unlike Robert “Bud” McFarlane (who served two tours as a Marine in Vietnam), has never heard a shot fired in anger.

Seeing the elephant matters—and in the recent contretemps over hitting Iran, it probably mattered a great deal. For while Tucker Carlson has entered Washington lore as the man who stopped a war, the thumb-on-the-scales in the recent debate belongs to Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who, like John Vessey, slow-rolled the bureaucracy, and the president. Dunford has a history of this. A can-do Marine, Dunford has not only seen the elephant (and many of them, as it were, in Iraq), is also a first-class student in the ways of Washington.

When Dunford disagrees with a policy, as a civilian Pentagon official described it to me, “he floods the zone”—- providing volumes of facts and figures that are as likely to delay as inform. He did that, famously, with John McCain, when the two crossed swords over Afghanistan policy during the Obama years. And he did that again, back in June, when Donald Trump wanted to hit back against Iran

“He told the president what would be involved, what it would cost, how Iran might strike back and how many people would die,” this Pentagon official said. “He just laid it out. It was pretty grim, but it’s what made the difference.”

That sounds right, for the one comparison that rings true is the one that recognizes in Joe Dunford what was true for John Vessey. For both of them, striking back, killing who you can because you can (and simply to assuage your own anger) is not only “beneath our dignity”—it’s a signpost on the road to unwinnable wars.

Thank God for the military men who have “seen the elephant” to drag their feet and tamp down the intelligence and national security team of chicken hawks who lust for war.  The worst part is that they have teamed up with British intelligence to stoke the fires for war with Iran and with the weak leadership in Britain no telling what the outcome will be.  From CheckpointAsia:

Excerpt:

How Trump’s Arch-Hawk Lured Britain Into a Dangerous Trap to Escalate the Crisis With Iran

Not that it has learned any lessons. Without knowing what that may entail, London keeps on blindly dancing to the beat of Bolton’s war drums

John Bolton, White House national security adviser and notorious Iraq-era hawk, is a man on a mission. Given broad latitude over policy by Donald Trump, he is widely held to be driving the US confrontation with Iran. And in his passionate bid to tame Tehran, Bolton cares little who gets hurt – even if collateral damage includes a close ally such as Britain.

So when Bolton heard British Royal Marines had seized an Iranian oil tanker off Gibraltar on America’s Independence Day, his joy was unconfined. “Excellent news: UK has detained the supertanker Grace I laden with Iranian oil bound for Syria in violation of EU sanctions,” he exulted on Twitter.

Bolton’s delighted reaction suggested the seizure was a surprise. But accumulating evidence suggests the opposite is true, and that Bolton’s national security team was directly involved in manufacturing the Gibraltar incident. The suspicion is that Conservative politicians, distracted by picking a new prime minister, jockeying for power, and preoccupied with Brexit, stumbled into an American trap.

In short, it seems, Britain was set up.

The consequences of the Gibraltar affair are only now becoming clear. The seizure of Grace I led directly to Friday’s capture by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards of a British tanker, the Stena Impero, in the Strait of Hormuz. Although it has not made an explicit link, Iran had previously vowed to retaliate for Britain’s Gibraltar “piracy”. Now it has its revenge.

As a result, Britain has been plunged into the middle of an international crisis it is ill-prepared to deal with. THE TIMING COULD HARDLY BE WORSE. An untested prime minister, presumably Boris Johnson, will enter Downing Street this week. Britain is on the brink of a disorderly exit from the EU, alienating its closest European partners. And its relationship with Trump’s America is uniquely strained.

Much of this angst could have been avoided. Britain opposed Trump’s decision to quit the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, the trigger for today’s crisis. It has watched with alarm as the Trump-Bolton policy of “maximum pressure”, involving punitive sanctions and an oil embargo, has radicalised the most moderate Iranians.

Yet even as Britain backed EU attempts to rescue the nuclear deal, Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt, foreign secretary, tried to have it both ways – to keep Trump sweet. They publicly supported Washington’s complaints about Iran’s “destabilising” regional activities and missile programme, and berated Iran when it bypassed agreed nuclear curbs.

Crucially, the government failed to significantly beef up protection for British-flagged vessels transiting the Gulf after attacks in May and June. This was partly because a depleted Royal Navy lacks capacity to mount adequate patrols. But it was also because officials feared that by raising its military profile, Britain could be sucked into armed conflict with Iran.

For Bolton, however, drawing Britain unambiguously in on America’s side was a desirable outcome. So when US spy satellites, tasked with helping block Iranian oil exports in line with Trump’s global embargo, began to track Grace I on its way, allegedly, to Syria, Bolton saw an opportunity.

The Spanish newspaper, El Pais, citing official sources, takes up the story: “The Grace 1, which flies a Panamanian flag, had been under surveillance by US satellites since April, when it was anchored off Iran. The supertanker, full to the brim with crude oil, was too big for the Suez Canal, and so it sailed around the Cape of Good Hope before heading for the Mediterranean.

“According to the US intelligence services, it was headed for the Syrian oil refinery of Banias. Washington advised Madrid of the arrival of the supertanker 48 hours ahead of time, and the Spanish navy followed its passage through the Strait of Gibraltar. It was expected to cross via international waters, as many Iranian vessels do without being stopped.”

Although Spanish officials, speaking after the event, said they would have intercepted the ship “if we had had the information and the opportunity”, Spain took no action at the time. But Bolton, in any case, was not relying on Madrid. The US had already tipped off Britain. On 4 July, after Grace I entered British-Gibraltar territorial waters, the fateful order was issued in London – it is not known by whom – and 30 marines stormed aboard.

Iran’s reaction was immediate and furious. It claimed Britain had acted illegally because the EU embargo on oil supplies to Syria, which Hunt claimed to be upholding, applied only to EU states and not to third countries such as Iran. In any case, Tehran said, the ship’s destination was not Syria.

Iran’s outrage was shared, to a lesser degree, by Josep Borrell, Spain’s socialist foreign minister. Borrell resented the British incursion into Gibraltar’s territorial waters, which Madrid does not recognise. He also appears to have been annoyed that Spain was drawn in – in Tehran, the Spanish ambassador had been summonsed by the foreign ministry to explain Madrid’s role. His reaction was to distance Spain from the affair.

The Iranian tanker had been seized “following a request from the United States to the United Kingdom,” he said. And even though Britain was supposedly upholding EU regulations, the External Action Service, the EU’s foreign policy arm, has remained silent throughout.

Iran’s retaliation in snatching the Stena Impero has further exposed Britain’s diplomatic isolation and its military and economic vulnerability. The government has advised British ships to avoid the Strait of Hormuz, an admission it cannot protect them. But between 15 and 30 British-flagged tankers transit the strait each day. If trade is halted, the impact on energy prices may be severe.

Hunt’s appeal for international support for Britain has so far fallen on deaf ears, France and Germany excepted. China, Japan and other countries that rely on oil from the Gulf show no sign of helping. The US plan for a multinational coalition to protect Gulf shipping has few takers. Meanwhile, Trump’s promise to back Britain has scant practical value – and carries inherent dangers.

The Bolton gambit succeeded. Despite its misgivings, Britain has been co-opted on to the front line of Washington’s confrontation with Iran. The process of polarisation, on both sides, is accelerating. The nuclear deal is closer to total collapse. And by threatening Iran with “serious consequences”, without knowing what that may entail, Britain blindly dances to the beat of Bolton’s war drums.

My, my, my lie with dogs and wake up with fleas.  Britain was very stupid to cozy up to Bolton and the other lunatics who have taken over America’s foreign policy asylum.  But then Britain has been part and parcel to the lunatics’ foreign policy blunders for a long time now.  Remember Tony Blair and his “sexed up WMD intel” that led to the Iraq War?  But it seems that “special relationship” is showing signs of strain.  From Strategic Culture:

Excerpt:

The ‘Special Relationship’ Is Collapsing… and That’s a Good Thing

British Ambassador Kim Darroch’s return to London from his failed mission in America is being hailed by many naïve commentators as yet another proof that President Trump is a crazed ego-maniac who cannot take criticism from a seasoned professional diplomat.

During the weeks since the “Darroch memo” scandal erupted, mainstream media has totally mis-diagnosed the nature of the breakdown in US-British relations, and has brushed over the most relevant evidence that has been brought to light by Darroch’s cables. This spinning of the narrative has made it falsely appear that the Ambassador merely criticized the President as “clumsy, diplomatically inept, unpredictable and dysfunctional” and was thus unjustly attacked by the President causing the poor diplomate to resign saying “the current situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as I would like.”

Former British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt went so far as to say that Darroch was “the best of Britain” and encouraged all diplomats to continue to “speak truth to power.” International press on both sides of the ocean followed suit portraying Darroch as a hero among men.

Hog wash.

The reality is that Darroch’s messages to the British Foreign Office go much deeper and reveal something very ugly that challenges the deepest assumptions about recent history and modern geopolitics.

Sir Darroch and Britain’s Invisible Hand Exposed

Sir Darroch, (Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George) is not your typical British diplomat. The Knight made a name for himself as a leading agent of Tony Blair while acting as Ambassador to the European Union from 2007-2011 in an effort to win international support for a regime change operation against Iran, Syria and Libya.

Blair and the highest levels of the British oligarchy had managed America as its “dumb giant” throughout the entire post-9/11 regime change program on the Middle East. While many have labelled this policy as “American”, we shall come to see that it was merely the carrying out of the “Blair Doctrine” announced in the 1999 speech in Chicago calling for a post-nation state (post-Westphalian) world order.

It is important to remind ourselves that the dodgy WMD dossier had been crafted by the British Foreign Office before being used by neo con hawks such as John Bolton and Cheney as justification to blow up Iraq in 2003.

It was also the earlier Anglo-Saudi sponsored BAE black operation run by Prince Bandar bin Sultan which funded and directed 9/11 earlier. As US Ambassador beginning in January 2016, Sir Darroch was instrumental in vetting Christopher Steele as “absolutely legit”. Steele’s “dodgy dossier” on Trump was used to justify the greatest witch hunt of a sitting President in history.

When viewed in the same light as the British-directed Russia-gating of the President, these memos shed valuable light upon the Byzantine methods which British intelligence has used to conduct its subtle manipulation of America for a very long time.

Trump Whisperers and Britain’s Other Tools

In his memos, Sir Darroch called for “flooding the zone” with Trump whisperers who can influence the President’s perceptions of the world and push him towards the British agenda on issues such as de-carbonization, Free Trade, and war with Iran.

Sir Darroch said to his superiors that “we have spent years building the relationships; they are the gatekeepers… the individuals we rely upon to ensure the U.K. voice is heard in the West Wing.” Who are these voices who been built up over years? National Security Advisor John Bolton is a long-standing visitor to the British embassy and former Chief of Staff John Kelly has had regular early morning breakfast dates. A Washington Post assessment of July 8th described Darroch’s “coterie- including Kellyanne Conway, Stephen Miller, Mick Mulvaney, Sarah Sanders and Trump ally Chris Ruddy” who have met at the embassy and “share about the President and his decision-making.”

Darroch also revealed that Trump’s resistance to the British position on war with Iran was not acceptable when the President chose to cancel an attack on Iran on June 21st after an America drone was shot down. Moments after Trump’s cancellation of the attack, a Darroch memo complained that Trump was “incoherent and chaotic” and that Trump could fall into line once he was “surrounded by a more hawkish group of advisers… Just one more Iranian attack somewhere in the region could trigger yet another Trump U-turn.”

Only two weeks after sending this cable, Britain orchestrated a crisis by seizing an Iranian ship on July 5th which snowballed into an Iranian seizure of a British tanker and greater danger of confrontation amongst the NATO axis and Iran.

The biggest confusion spread by the controllers of “officially accepted narratives” when assessing such things as 9-11, regime change wars, or the current debacle in Iran is located in a sleight of hand that asserts that America leads the British in the Special relationship. This belief in an “American empire” betrays a profound misunderstanding of history.

The Fallacious History of US-British “Friendship”

For much of the 19th century, Americans generally had a better understanding of their anti-colonial origins than many do today. Even though the last official war fought between Britain and America was in 1812-15, the British failure to destroy America militarily caused British foreign policy to re-focus its efforts on undermining America from within… generally through the dual infestation of British-sponsored ideologies contaminating the American school system on the one hand and British banking practices of Wall Street’s ruling class on the other.

This attack from within required more patience, but was more successful and led to the near collapse of America in 1860 when Lord Palmerston quickly recognized the Southern slave power’s call for independence from the Union. Britain’s covert military support for the Confederate cause was exposed by the end of that war and led to Britain’s payment of $15 million settlement to America as part of the Alabama Claims in 1872.

As the informative 2010 Lpac documentary “The Special Relationship is for Traitors” showcased, during the early 20th century leading American military figures like Brig. General Billy Mitchell understood Britain’s role in supporting the Confederacy and Britain’s manipulation of global wars.

General Mitchell fought against the “special relationship” tooth and nail and led the military to create “War Plan Red and War Plan Orange” to defeat Britain under the context of an eventual war between the English-speaking powers. These plans were made US military doctrine in 1930 and were only taken off the books when America decided it was more important to put down London’s Fascist Frankenstein threat than fight Britain head on in WWII.

The Rhodes Scholars Take Over

Before the “Churchill gang” (that Stalin accused of poisoning FDR) could take control of America, Franklin Roosevelt described his understanding of the British influence over the US State Department when he told his son: “You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think.

They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!” I was told… six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office….”

With FDR’s death, these British operatives took over American foreign policy and wiped out the remaining pro-American forces in the State Department, disbanding the OSS and reconstituting America’s intelligence services as the MI6-modelled CIA in 1948.

In 1951, the Chicago Tribune published a incredible series of exposes by journalist William Fulton documenting the cancerous penetration of hundreds of Oxford Trained Rhodes Scholars who had taken over American foreign policy and were directing America into a third world war. On July 14, 1951 Fulton wrote: “Key positions in the United States department of state are held by a network of American Rhodes scholars.

Rhodes scholars are men who obtained supplemental education and indoctrination at Oxford University in England with the bills paid by the estate of Cecil John Rhodes, British empire builder. Rhodes wrote about his ambition to cause “the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British empire.” The late diamond and gold mining tycoon aimed at a world federation dominated by Anglo-Saxons.”

Sir Kissinger Opens the Floodgates

A star pupil of William Yandall Elliot (a leading Rhodes Scholar based out of Harvard) was a young misanthropic German named Henry Kissinger.

A decade before becoming a Knight of the British Empire, Kissinger gave a remarkable speech at a May 1981 event on British-American relations at London’s Royal Institute for International Affairs. At this event Kissinger described the opposing world views of Churchill vs. Roosevelt, gushing that he much preferred the post-war view of Churchill.

He then described his time working for the British Foreign Office as Secretary of State saying: “The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations…  In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department… It was symptomatic”.

As Kissinger spoke these words, another anglophile traitor was being installed as Vice-President of America. George Bush Sr. was not only the son of a Nazi-funding Wall Street tool and former director of the CIA, but was also made a Knight of the Grand Cross and Order of Bath by Queen Elizabeth in 1993. The most disasterous foreign policies enacted under Reagan’s leadership during the 1980s can be traced directly back to these two figures.

The Potential Revival of the ‘Real’ America

Think what you may of Donald Trump. The fact is, that he has not started any wars which a Jeb or Hillary were happy to launch. He has reversed a regime change program active since 9/11. He has fought to put America into a cooperative position with Russia. He has undone decades of WTO/City of London free trade. He has called for rebuilding productive industries following through by reviving the protective tariff.

To top it off, he has been at war with the British-directed deep state for over three years and survived. Now that Bolton has been outed as an ally of Sir Darroch, there is an open acknowledgement that Trump is gearing up to replace the neocon traitor as we speak. Trump has many problems but being a British asset is not one of them.

If you’ve made it this far, you shouldn’t be surprised that the collapse of the special relationship is a very good thing, since America now has a real opportunity to rediscover its true anti-imperial nature by working with Russia, China, India and other nations under the new cooperative framework of space exploration and the Belt and Road Initiative.

Wow, that explains a lot about what has been going on in America for a long, long time.  Tulsi Gabbard understands this better than anyone.  Gabbard in her recent CNN sponsored debate explained that the Trump Administrations policies are supporting terrorism. 

She’s right.  FromSpectator:

Excerpt:

Tulsi Gabbard is right. Trump supports al-Qaeda…just like Obama did

Like Trump’s Saudi Arabia policy, Obama inadvertently supported terrorists in the name of aiding allies

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard made a comment during Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate that left many scratching their heads.  ‘We were supposed to be going after al-Qaeda, but over years now, not only have we not gone after al-Qaeda,’ she said, adding, ‘our president is supporting al-Qaeda.’

Donald Trump is supporting al-Qaeda? Gabbard doubled down on her statement during a post-debate appearance on Fox News, saying that the Trump administration’s ‘support and alliance with Saudi Arabia that is both providing direct and indirect support directly to al-Qaeda.’  ‘How can you say Saudi Arabia is a great partner in fighting terrorism when they are fueling and funding terrorist groups in Yemen?’ Gabbard added.

The congresswoman is correct. A CNN investigation found that American arms sold to the Saudis have ended up in the hands of terrorists, including al-Qaeda. You would think this would at least make the US question its alliance with the Kingdom.

Which is exactly what Tulsi’s fellow 2020 Democratic hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren did when she challenged the Trump administration on this front. So did conservative Republican Sen. Mike Lee and many other Republicans.

In mid-July, the Democratic-majority House voted to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The ayes included four Republicans, primarily in response to that government’s slaying of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Still, Saudi support to terrorists using US dollars and weapons was also part of that opposition.

So, yes, Tulsi is correct. Donald Trump, however indirectly, ‘is supporting al-Qaeda.’  Just like Barack Obama did.  One of the primary criticisms of the Obama administration’s decision to arm Syrian rebel groups to undermine dictator Bashar al-Assad in that country’s civil war, is that some of those rebels were in fact terrorists, including al-Qaeda.

When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to support Obama in this effort in 2013, Sen. Rand Paul staunchly opposed it and warned his hawkish colleagues. ‘This is an important moment,’ Paul declared, ‘You will be funding, today, the allies of al-Qaeda. It’s an irony you cannot overcome.’

Ever since, there have been multiple reports that the US was aiding al-Qaeda with its Syrian rebel support. Even President Trump acknowledged this, thus ending Obama’s policy in 2017.  Like Trump’s Saudi Arabia policy, Obama inadvertently supported terrorists in the name of aiding allies. There’s no getting around that fact.

Now, would Obama acknowledge he was supporting al-Qaeda? No. Would Trump? Hell no. Would the hawks who man the Washington foreign policy establishment ever admit their policies in Saudi Arabia and Syria were indirectly aiding terrorists? Never. Don’t expect them to even consider the possibility, before or after committing that act of insanity. Being part of the establishment means never having to say you’re wrong or sorry.

In fact, when Sen. Paul tried to warn his fellow senators six years ago that sending arms to Syrian rebels would end up helping terrorists, Sen. Marco Rubio scoffed, saying, ‘I don’t think any member of this committee would vote for anything we thought was going to arm al-Qaeda.’

But he did. They all did.

The US government, under the previous and present administrations, has pursued policies that have indirectly supported al-Qaeda. It has been a bipartisan policy, in whatever form it takes, under whichever president, that is as crazy as it sounds.

Thanks to Tulsi Gabbard for reminding us.

Yes indeed, thanks to Tulsi Gabbard for reminding us of what traitors we have in our government.  A government where the lunatics have taken over the American foreign policy asylum.  Tulsi Gabbard has no chance of defeating the DNC or RNC and actually becoming president, it just won’t be allowed.  But Donald Trump is President and will be reelected President.  Now is the time to take back America’s foreign policy asylum and put the lunatics back in their locked rooms, heavily medicated where they can no longer hurt America, her people and the world.