House of Windsor and the New World Order | Light On Conspiracies – Revealing the Agenda

house-of-windsor-and-the-new-world-order-light-on-conspiracies-8211-revealing-the-agenda

01-03-19 10:09:00,

Published on Oct 22, 2015

Tried to fix the worst audio sync problems, and re-uploaded from another channel. People need to know this information.

Please take a moment to support Ole on Patreon!

Much of the daily content we publish is notable to us for various reasons. Having said that, the views and opinions expressed in this content, (articles, videos or any other content), are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the authors of this site.

As always, please do your own research. Please do not believe what you are told. Take what you like, and leave the rest.

 » Lees verder

House Oversight Whistleblowers Claim Trump Trying To Transfer US Nuke Technology To Saudi Arabia

house-oversight-whistleblowers-claim-trump-trying-to-transfer-us-nuke-technology-to-saudi-arabia

19-02-19 06:54:00,

The House Oversight committee now chaired by Democrat Elijah Cummings issued an interim staff report after several whistleblowers came forward “to warn about efforts inside the White House to rush the transfer of highly sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia in potential violation of the Atomic Energy Act,” spearheaded by Jared Kushner, according to a press release by the House Oversight Committee.

The press release is in conjunction with the announcement of an investigation into the allegations. 

The plan, which reportedly involved former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Kushner and Trump fundraiser Thomas Barrack, would see the development of “dozens of nuclear power plants” in a “Middle East Marshall Plan” through IP3 – a private US company which has “assembled a consortium of US companies to build nuclear plants in Saudi Arabia.” 

The whistleblowers allege that the efforts were made without review by Congress “as required by law,” and may be ongoing to this day. 

“The whistleblowers who came forward have expressed significant concerns about the potential procedural and legal violations connected with rushing through a plan to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.  They have warned of conflicts of interest among top White House advisers that could implicate federal criminal statutes.  They have also warned about a working environment inside the White House marked by chaos, dysfunction, and backbiting.  And they have warned about political appointees ignoring directives from top ethics advisors at the White House who repeatedly and unsuccessfully ordered senior Trump Administration officials to halt their efforts.” -Interim Staff Report

According to the report, efforts to transfer the sensitive US nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia may be accelerating following White House meetings last week ahead of Jared Kushner’s planned visit to the Middle-Eastern country. 

“The Committee’s investigation is particularly critical because the Administration’s efforts to transfer sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia appear to be ongoing.  On February 12, 2019, the President met with nuclear power developers at the White House about sharing nuclear technology with countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.  In addition, next week Mr. Kushner will be embarking on a tour of Middle Eastern capitals—including Riyadh—to discuss the economic portion of the Administration’s Middle East peace plan.” -Interim Staff Report

The report notes that the White House has failed to submit a report on the murder of Washington Post columnist and political operative Jamal Khashoggi. 

 » Lees verder

House Bill Forces Trump to Nominate “Anti-Semitism Envoy” Who Would Monitor Criticism of Israel

house-bill-forces-trump-to-nominate-anti-semitism-envoy-who-would-monitor-criticism-of-israel

15-01-19 09:58:00,

The position of anti-Semitism envoy was
created in 2004 over the objections of the
State Department, which said it wasn’t
needed. It was urged by Israeli Minister for
Diaspora Affairs Natan Sharansky, who had
formulated a new definition of anti-Semitism
that includes criticism of Israel.



By Alison Weir

January 14, 2019 “Information
Clearing House

–   

The U.S. House of Representatives voted
411-1
 for a bill that would force
President Trump to nominate an anti-Semitism
envoy, a position that has been vacant since
he took office. The definition of
anti-Semitism the position uses includes
certain criticisms of Israel.

The bipartisan bill upgrades the current
position of Anti-Semitism Envoy to an
ambassador rank, which requires the job to
be filled within 90 days.

The law states that the Special Envoy
shall “serve as the primary advisor to, and
coordinate efforts across, the U.S.
government relating to monitoring and
combating anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic
incitement in foreign countries.”

The bill, H.R.221-
Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat
Anti-Semitism Act
, was sponsored by Rep.
Christopher H. Smith [R-NJ-4] and has 87
co-sponsors
. Smith’s largest campaign
donor
 was NorPAC,
a pro-Israel political action committee.

To become law the bill must next be
passed by the Senate and then be signed by
the president. If Trump vetoes it, Congress
can override this through a two-thirds vote.

The position of anti-Semitism envoy was
created in 2004 over the objections of the
State Department, which said it wasn’t
needed. It was urged by
Israeli Minister for Diaspora Affairs Natan
Sharansky, who had formulated a new
definition of anti-Semitism that includes
criticism of Israel.

Previous envoys before or after serving
in the position worked for the Israel
lobbying organization AIPAC, the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee.


The second envoy,

 » Lees verder

Oops: House Democrats Mistakenly Cast Votes Blocking Resolution on Ending Yemen War

oops-house-democrats-mistakenly-cast-votes-blocking-resolution-on-ending-yemen-war

16-11-18 08:08:00,

In a political maneuver that was equal parts bizarre and grimly predictable, Republican leaders on Capitol Hill moved yet again on Wednesday to block a vote to wind down U.S. military support for the war in Yemen, this time by tucking a parliamentary procedure into a rule governing legislation that removes gray wolves from the endangered species list.

The measure narrowly passed with a 201-187 vote, preventing any action on the war in Yemen this legislative session.

What’s more, several of the co-sponsors of the Yemen resolution to end the war either voted to advance the wolf bill or abstained from the vote entirely, meaning that they played a part in preventing their own bill from reaching the House floor.

Adding to the confusion, two of the six House Democrats who joined Republicans in beating back the Yemen bill have told The Intercept that they cast their votes in error.

“Mr. Vela’s vote was actually mistake – we are in the process of changing it,” wrote Mickeala Carter, a spokesperson for Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Texas, who voted for the rule that prevented the Yemen vote.

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., is a co-sponsor of the Yemen legislation, which invokes the 1973 War Powers Act to compel the Trump administration to remove U.S. forces from “hostilities” related to the Saudi Arabia-led intervention. Eshoo voted for the measure blocking her own resolution from reaching the floor, a move that puzzled human rights advocates.

“She is a cosponsor of the Resolution and made a mistake on the vote,” wrote Emma Crisci, a spokesperson for Eshoo’s office, in an email to The Intercept. “The Congresswoman is submitting a statement for the Congressional Record saying that she made a mistake in voting and meant to vote NO on the rule.”

Four other House Democrats — Reps. Gene Green and Vicente González of Texas, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, and Jim Costa of California — also voted for the rule to prevent the Yemen bill from reaching the floor, and did not respond to a request for comment.

Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., signed on as a co-sponsor of the legislation to wind down the war in Yemen in October. Buck was selected by GOP leadership this cycle to serve on the House Rules Committee,

 » Lees verder

The White House prepares the return of the Euromissiles, by Manlio Dinucci

The White House prepares the return of the Euromissiles, by Manlio Dinucci

24-10-18 08:03:00,

JPEG - 29.8 kb

The announcement that “Trump breaks the historic nuclear treaty with Moscow” – the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) – was no surprise. Now, however, it is official. To understand the scope of this act, we should review the historical context from which the INF Treaty was born.

The president of the United States, Ronald Reagan, and the president of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, signed the INF in Washington, on Dec. 8, 1987, after having agreed on it the year before at the Reykjavik, Iceland, summit. According to the INF, the United States undertook to eliminate the “Euromissiles”: the Pershing 2 ballistic missiles, deployed in Western Germany, and the land-based cruise missiles, deployed in Britain, Italy, Western Germany, Belgium and Holland. The Soviet Union committed to eliminating the SS-20 ballistic missiles, deployed on its territory.

The INF Treaty established not only a ceiling to the deployment of a specific category of nuclear missiles, but the elimination of all missiles in that category: By 1991 a total of 2,692 were eliminated. The limitation of the Treaty was that it eliminated short- and intermediate-range nuclear missiles launched from land, but not those launched from sea and air. Nevertheless, the INF Treaty was a first step on the road to real nuclear disarmament.

This important result was essentially due to the “disarmament offensive” launched by the Soviet Union of Gorbachev: On Jan. 15, 1986, the Soviet Union had proposed not only to eliminate Soviet and U.S. mid-range missiles, but to implement a comprehensive three-stage programme to ban nuclear weapons by the year 2000. This project remained on paper because Washington took advantage of the crisis and the disintegration of the rival superpower to increase its strategic superiority, including its nuclear superiority. The United States thus remained the only superpower on the world stage.

It is no coincidence that Washington only called the INF Treaty into question when the United States saw its strategic advantage over Russia, China and other powers diminish. In 2014, the Obama administration accused Russia, without presenting any evidence, of having experimented with a cruise missile of the category prohibited by the Treaty. The administration announced that “the United States is considering the deployment of ground-based missiles in Europe,” that is, the abandonment of the INF Treaty [1].

 » Lees verder

The White House Has A Step-By-Step “Program Of Escalation” For Venezuela

The White House Has A Step-By-Step “Program Of Escalation” For Venezuela

25-09-18 08:49:00,

The White House has prepared an intelligence blueprint for regime change in Venezuela, according to a bombshell Monday evening report in Axios

According to the report, which follows a New York Times story from early this month that confirmed the administration had previously established a “clandestine channel” involving covert meetings with Venezuelan military coup plotters targeting President Nicolás Maduro, the White House has prepared for multiple scenarios involving dramatic military escalation that could trigger US invasion of the small Latin American country.

Per Axios

The White House National Security Council drafted a step-by-step “program of escalation” for Venezuela after President Trump took office, including the grounds for military intervention, a former senior official said today.

The plans were revealed by Fernando Cutz, who was a top adviser to former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and the top National Security Council official on South America, while speaking at an event at the Wilson Center. 

Cutz said he was part of a working group to lay out potential scenarios of escalating crises in Venezuela and corresponding options detailing the US reaction to events. 

Among the scenarios Cutz outlined included the potential for a Venezuelan military assault and takeover of the US embassy in Caracas, or a massacre of 1,000 civilians which could trigger an America military response on humanitarian grounds. 

However Cutz voiced skepticism over the success of many of the plans, questioning what would come the day after if a coup d’état or even complete regime collapse were to occur.

According to Axios,

He said other steps the White House “had ready” included a full oil embargo, which would severely restrict Venezuela’s cashflow but presented the question: “If we destroy Venezuela, and we make the situation worse for the people of Venezuela, what comes next?” They didn’t have a satisfactory answer.

Concerning prior reports that Trump White House officials had previously met with Venezuelan military coup plotters to discuss potential support for fomenting regime change:

Cutz was asked about the meetings and said the White House “never debated supporting a coup” or offered support or tacit approval to coup plotters,

 » Lees verder

White House Is Planning To Nationalize 5G Network: Report

White House Is Planning To Nationalize 5G Network: Report

29-01-18 05:57:00,

In a stunning – if accurate – report published Sunday night, Axios claims that White House national security officials are considering an unprecedented federal takeover of a portion of the nation’s mobile spectrum/network to protect against Chinese attacks, in what may well be a pre-emptive shot, hinting at upcoming trade wars between the two superpowers.

Axios got its hands on PowerPoint deck and a memo, both of which were purportedly produced by a senior National Security Council official, which were presented to other senior officials at other agencies during a recent meeting.  The documents argue that America needs a centralized nationwide 5G network within three years. There’ll be a fierce debate inside the Trump administration, and an outcry from the industry over the next 6-8 months over how such a network is going to be built and paid for.

For those unfamiliar with 5G, Quora has a useful discussion on “How is 5G different from 4G and when will it be launched?”

The document’s author presents two options:

  • The U.S. government pays for and builds the single network — which would be an unprecedented nationalization of a historically private infrastructure.
  • An alternative plan where wireless providers build their own 5G networks that compete with one another — though the document says the downside is it could take longer and cost more. It argues that one of the “pros” of that plan is that it would cause “less commercial disruption” to the wireless industry than the government building a network.

Another expert who discussed the plan with Axios said the second option isn’t really feasible because a single, centralized network is what is needed to protect against cyberattacks from the Chinese or other foreign powers.

The source said the internal White House debate will be over whether the U.S. government owns and builds the network or whether the carriers bind together in a consortium to build the network, an idea that would require them to put aside their business models to serve the country’s greater good.

Option 1 would lead to federal control of a part of the economy that today is largely controlled by private wireless providers;

 » Lees verder

House Democrats Vote to Block Consideration of Trump Impeachment | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

House Democrats Vote to Block Consideration of Trump Impeachment | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

21-12-17 08:44:00,

Featured image: President-elect Donald J. Trump and U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi smile for a photo during the 58th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2017. (DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Marianique Santos)

On December 6, a majority of Democrats in the House joined all House Republicans in voting to prevent the House of Representatives from even debating articles of impeachment against President Trump. The House voted 364-58 (with 10 non-votes) to table impeachment articles (H RES 646) sponsored by Texas Democrat Al Green. Over the strong objections of Democratic leaders (an oxymoron), Green had brought his impeachment resolution to a vote by invoking his personal privilege as a House member. Green’s resolution began:

ARTICLE I

In his capacity as President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies necessary for stability within the society of the United States, Donald John Trump has with his statements done more than insult individuals and groups of Americans, he has harmed the society of the United States, brought shame and dishonor to the office of President of the United States, sowing discord among the people of the United States by associating the majesty and dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in white supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, white nationalism, or neo-Nazism on one or more of the following occasions…

There is nothing surprising or false in this observation. The remainder of Article I lists well-reported occasions when Trump acted as described. There is no doubt that the events occurred. Article I concludes that:

“Donald John Trump by causing such harm to the society of the United States is unfit to be President and warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office.”

There is no question about what Trump’s behavior has been. The argument would be whether his behavior constitutes an impeachable offense under the Constitution’s Article II, section 4, which provides only that:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery,

 » Lees verder