Navy Coup Attempted Against Trump?

Thanks Vlad, I owe you one!

Ruslan Maratovich Asainov

President Putin coordinated with President Trump, transferring into FBI custody ISIS sniper and weapons instructor Ruslan Maratovich Asainov [a naturalized US citizen] who revealed to his Russian Police interrogators that he had worked with US NAVY SEALS in Iraq, who were to be smuggled into the US for their intended assassination attempt: the target being President Trump.

SecDef Mark Esper

Secretary of Defense Esper suspended from duty, and ordered back from Iraq, 19 USN SEALs and four of their support troops.  Esper also ordered the immediate arrest of 16 Marines in California.

The cover story for the removal of the SEALs was
"Foxtrot Platoon, Seal Team 7, drank alcohol at a 4th of July Party and a senior enlisted member had raped a female Service member attached to the platoon."

Esper also ordered the immediate arrest of 16 Marines in California.

Asainov had worked his way up through the ranks to achieve the position of Emir. In correspondence to friends in Brooklyn, he stated he would like to "... die on the battlefield."
[We're not sure how he had connected with the US SEALs]

The question becomes, how deeply imbedded are such Military traitors in our system, and how many more potential of them are there in the Navy and the other Services.

And, how many terrorists like Asainov reside in our midst.

Interestingly, only days before, Esper had been a place holder Secretary of the Army.

 His immediate appointment as Secretary of Defense took place without debate, and was approved by the Senate with an unprecedented 90-8 vote. Esper is a West Point classmate of Secretary of State Pompeo.

Is it possible key Congressional leaders were briefed on the probability of a Military Coup in progress, giving them a sense of urgency?

Admiral Gorshkov Stealth Frigate

A sidelight of this event was that President Putin informed President Trump of this impending coup by the US Navy, and positioned a Russian warship off the US coast.

[We suspect Putin trusts Trump to keep the Deep State warmongers in check and Trump as an ally in case the PRC poses a military threat.]

[The enemy of my enemy is my ally]


Putin thus stationed the Russian Admiral Gorshkov Class Stealth Frigate off the US Caribbean coastline, apparently anticipating a possible post-coup military attack on Russia. Previously, the frigate had been reported in Cuban waters.

[This class Stealth Frigate can fire cruise missiles, surface to air missiles, and even the GrahMos [PJ-10] supersonic sea-skimming cruise missile.]

ADM Moran

Esper then relieved Admiral William Moran who had been scheduled to become the Chief of Naval Operations [CNO] - citing an "unprofessional relationship with a subordinate."

Moran's nomination as CNO was unusual since his only Line Officer duty appeared to be his time as a P-3 Orion pilot.

 Oddly, his career seemed to be primarily as a Personnel Officer, rising to become the Chief of Naval Personnel -- an important position, but certainly not a normal stepping stone to the CNO position.

[But, interestingly, he was also the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations.]

Earlier, his assignments were in dual roles as well as Personnel Officer and either Executive Assistant or Deputy Commander. To the cynical eye, it would appear he was being groomed as the future, if qualified on paper only, the Navy CNO, but by whom?  A Deep State or Obama selectee?

On the other hand, if he were involved in coup planning [which we are not alleging], in managing flag officer selections, he could screen, pick and choose his future admiral rank junta.  

[Or, could he have been linked to the outing of and assassination of the Pentagon officers who attempted a meeting with 0bama at the Navy Yard to encourage him to resign in 2013? ]

Other reports indicate there may be linkage between the US Navy and Epstein's island[s], although the details of that arrangement are, as yet, not fully known. Perhaps Admiral Moran could elucidate for us.

Former DNI Dan Coats

Meanwhile, looking at Trump's machinations, this highly unusual sequence coincided with Trump's replacement of Dan Coats with Congressman John Ratcliffe. Officially, Coats had been quarreling with Trump over the "Russian Threat".

Coats' tacit alliance with Clapper and Brennan likely did not endear him to Trump, and Coats had been a K-Street lobbyist and was commonly regarded as a denizen of the Deep State, and not to be trusted.
 Better to "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer!"


Quite telling was the almost universal outrage by Democrats over Coats' departure. 

[The only time such outrage occurs is if Trump ditches a Democrat favorite. Hmm. ]

Why put Coats in such a sensitive Intelligence position? 
[Pure speculation on our part] 

1) Trump regarded the entire Intelligence Community as more of an adversary than a supporting organization, and the National Intelligence Estimates he received were of little value. So, keeping Coats in that position neutered his power, and kept him in a place where Trump could monitor him. 

2) The monitoring part was important since Coats was presumed to be an adversary, a leaker, and tied to Clapper, Brennan, and Obama supporters. Monitoring Coats revealed all his contacts, and identified more of the hidden adversaries, particularly Deep State orchestrators. 

3) Last, but not least, was the overlap between the Deep State and the Epstein cabal. 

Editorial Note

Was/is the Navy involved with Epstein, and if so, how, and beginning when. There have been a number of allusions to this relationship, and we suspect the smoke there may indicate a bit of fire. 

If, in fact, there were a coup afoot, we suspect there will be more attempts, and we'll see more luminaries disappearing from the landscape, only to reappear in Gitmo.

Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative Destroyed

Hope Hicks testified, in full, before the House Committee,
answering all questions regarding Trump's contact with Russia.
The Democrats now focus solely on questions she declined
which addressed other White House issues.

Since the News Media buried this report, 

hoping the voting public would not notice, 

we are re-publishing it, as written, 

to give it global coverage and offset the 

Fake News the Democrats' are reporting.  

True journalism is rare today, so we want to 

give it our full support and widest distribution!

While the press portrayed Hope Hicks’s silence as all-inclusive, 

in reality she testified at length and in detail about all aspects of 

Trump’s presidential campaign. 

How Hope Hicks’s Testimony Destroyed The Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative.
The Federalist, 24June2019
By: Margot Cleveland 

Following the Thursday [13June2019] release of the transcript from Hope Hicks’s testimony before the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee, the media quickly concentrated on the questions Trump’s former communications director refused to answer.

But while the press portrayed Hicks’s silence as all-inclusive, in reality Hicks testified at length and in detail about all aspects of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. And that testimony established yet again that the Russia collusion narrative was a hoax. 

One theme of Democrats’ questioning of Hicks concerned the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russians. Several times Hicks confirmed the lack of contacts between top Trump campaign members and Russia.

 “I’m telling you,” Hicks testified, “I wasn’t aware in the campaign of any contacts with Russian officials.”

Later, when asked again what, if any, communications and contacts there were between the Trump campaign and Russian or Russian officials, Hicks noted that during the campaign she wasn’t aware of any but later learned of insignificant contacts, such as Jeff Sessions meeting the Russian ambassador at a foreign policy speech.

Hicks further testified that a Russian official’s post-election comment that Russia was “in constant communication or constant contact with members of Trump’s inner circle throughout the campaign,” “was not true.”

“I’m not aware of anybody that regularly interacted with Mr. Trump that was a decisionmaker that advised him on a frequent basis that had, ‘regular contacts’ with any Russian officials,” Hicks stressed.

Hicks, who had previously worked for the Trump organization, also testified that she was not aware of any financial ties between Russia and the Trump Organization during the campaign. Nor did Hicks have any knowledge of any “foreign government providing cash or any other thing of value to Mr. Trump during the campaign,” or of any conversations during the campaign about Trump traveling to Russia (other than for the Miss Universe Pageant), or meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Hicks further told the committee that she only “became aware that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the 2016 elections” when the story hit the press.

Nothing on the DNC Hack Or Trump Tower 

Democrats on the Committee nonetheless pushed the Russia collusion narrative by attempting to portray an email Hicks received from the editor-in-chief of the Russian internet newspaper Vzglyad as evidence of a Russian conspiracy.

Joe Neguse

Democratic Representative Joe Neguse flipped to the much-referenced Robert Mueller report to read the special counsel’s finding that “one day earlier the publication’s founder and former Russian parliamentarian Konstantin Rykov had registered two Russian websites, Trump2016.ru and DonaldTrump2016.ru.”

But Neguse’s attempt to implicate the Trump campaign in Russia’s online efforts to interfere in the election failed badly.

Hicks noted: “I don’t recall receiving the interview request”; I received hundreds of interview requests, sometimes daily.”

Because Trump had no intention of participating in the interview, Hicks explained, she was not concerned about the identity of the outlet, and hadn’t even realized until after the fact that the email had come from a Russian.

Concerning the WikiLeaks hacks, Hicks made clear that the only discussion the campaign had was “...speculation about if there would be more emails or information released, but that was prompted by things in the media” and it wasn’t with certainty that more leaks would happen, but “with speculation and skepticism.”

“No” Hicks stressed, Trump did not talk about WikiLeaks or the hack, nor did anybody else in the campaign, other than what was discussed in the public domain. Hicks also testified that during the campaign she had heard nothing about Roger Stone and his supposed relationship with WikiLeaks or its founder Julian Assange, or about WikiLeaks’ “divulgence of information about the emails of Hillary Clinton and Mr. Podesta” beyond media coverage.

In short, Hicks stated that during the campaign, Trump never indicated that he knew ahead of time that WikiLeaks was responsible for the Democratic National Committee hacks or that he had knowledge that additional information would be released.

Hicks also confirmed that before the election she had not been told that anyone at the Trump campaign had been offered information about Hillary Clinton.

The Trump Tower meeting was another focus of committee questions:
Hicks told the committee that she did not know about the Trump Tower meeting or Donald Trump Jr.’s emails about that meeting until after Trump was elected president. She had also never heard “... any discussion from any Trump Organization employee or Mr. Trump about an ongoing effort to pursue a potential Trump Tower Moscow at that time...” another thread woven into the Russia collusion hoax.

Hick’s responses during last week’s hearing also provided fresh insight into Trump’s behind-the-scenes response to news of Russian interference. Hicks noted that the campaign only “... became aware that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the 2016 elections...” when the story hit the press. The president’s former confidant added that any conversations she was privy to during the campaign concerning Russia interference in the election mirrored what Trump said publicly.

The Trump Collusion Narrative Is a Red Herring 

Then, when asked what specifically Trump said during the campaign about public reports that his team was coordinating with Russia, Hicks relayed that Trump called it “nonsense.”

Trump believed that the Russia collusion conspiracy “...was something that the Clinton campaign had made up to deflect from the information that they viewed as harmful to their candidate, to their campaign...” Hicks explained.  She also testified that she agreed with his assessment and that the “... unsubstantiated claims that [the Trump campaign] were coordinating with Russia was an attempt to distract and deflect.”

Trump's former communications director added that the Trump campaign obviously knew there was no collusion, but admitted that had she been working instead for the Clinton campaign, she “probably would have taken a similar strategy.”

Hicks further noted that, whether the Russia collusion hoax was being peddled by the “Clinton campaign or speculated about in the media,” her discussions with candidate Trump focused on how to respond to the false claims.

Hicks also shared details of her conversation with Trump following his late-July 2016 off-the-cuff remark:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Hicks explained that she informed Trump that “... some in the media had taken the expression quite literally, and that they were concerned he was encouraging foreign governments to, you know, locate those emails, and that that was obviously something that the media felt was extremely inappropriate and demanded a response from Mr. Trump and the campaign as to what exactly he meant by that.”

Hicks stated that, “... both from Trump’s remark and her discussion with him after,” she understood the comment as a joke. When pushed about what Trump had said, Hicks conveyed that he noted
“it was intended as a light-hearted comment.”

Trump Was Concerned About Paul Manafort 

In practice, however, Trump took concerns about Russia’s meddling seriously, Hicks explained.

Paul Manafort

For instance, according to Hicks, after the media began questioning Trump’s campaign chair, Paul Manafort. Trump, not realizing
Manafort’s close relationship with Richard Gates, asked Gates to keep an eye on Manafort.

Trump questioned some of Manafort’s “past work with other foreign governments, foreign campaigns...,” and stressed that “none of that would be appropriate to be ongoing during his service with the Trump campaign...” Hicks elaborated. He also asked Gates to let him know “if anything led him to believe that was ongoing.”

Mike Flynn

When, following Trump’s election, then-President Barack Obama raised questions about Michael Flynn to Trump, Hicks explained that warning tainted Trump’s view of Flynn going forward.

Trump “... was a bit bewildered that, you know, of all the things that the two of them could have been discussing,” it was Flynn that came up.

(This detail also raises the question of Obama’s motivation and his efforts to sour the president-elect’s relationship with Flynn.) 

Hicks’ testimony also negated several other Democratic and media talking points on Russia interference and collusion. While Democrats attempted to portray Trump as unperturbed by Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, Hicks countered, “I think he was concerned, but I think he was simultaneously concerned that folks with a political agenda were going to weaponize that assessment to try to undermine the legitimacy of this election.”

Misrepresenting the Truth for Political Gain 

Ted Lieu [CA-D]

Hicks similarly exposed how the media misrepresented information to further the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, when Representative Ted Lieu attempted to do the same during the hearing.

“In 2008, Donald Trump, Jr., was quoted as saying ‘In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia’” Lieu quoted to Hicks.

Hicks acknowledged that she had spoken with Trump Jr., about this statement, but only to ensure “the media wasn’t misrepresenting the remark or presenting it in any misleading way.”

Hicks obliterated many of the Russia-collusion talking points pushed by Democrats and the media for the last three years.

“And how was the media mischaracterizing Donald Trump, Jr.’s remarks?” Lieu quizzed.

The media “made it seem like there was Russian money coming into the Trump Organization in a way that was inappropriate or somehow sinister when Trump Jr., was merely describing the kinds of clientele that were purchasing luxury apartments, both in New York City, Chicago, and in South Florida.  They’re a luxury, globally recognized real estate company,” Hicks explained, so “it would be odd if [the Trump Organization] weren’t selling to people just because they’re affiliated with Russia.”

By the end of her nearly eight hours of testimony last week, Hicks had obliterated many of the Russia-collusion talking points pushed by Democrats and the media for the last three years, even more expertly than Mueller did in his special counsel report.

As one Democrat noted during the hearing, Hicks was “... with [Trump] every day,” during both the primary and general election.
She would have known had the campaign colluded with Russia.
Yet her testimony made clear there was no Russia strategy, significant contact, collaboration, or collusion, which is why when Hicks was asked whether she thought the President “might be angry about [her] testifying before Congress today...”
her ready reply punctuated her significant—but unreported—testimony:
“I think the President knows that I would tell the truth, and the truth is there was no collusion. And I’m happy to say that as many times as is necessary today.”


----------------------

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. 

Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk 
to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty 
member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business
at the University of Notre Dame. 

The views expressed here are 
those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Part 2 - Obama's Money Laundering: Chinese Global Domination?

Click here for related story:
[NYT 09012011 - Matthew Wald]

We recognized the Solyndra debacle was an Obama scam, but, we never quite grasped the depth of the corruption involved, or, how it would eventually tie to the Deep State shift of global control from the United States to China.  While America was distracted by the Russia scandal, which has dominated world news for more than two years, we were distracted from the actual Economic and Military threat from China.  This is a long and convoluted thread; take the time to read it all the way to the end which should open your eyes to the big picture from which the Leftist Media has been distracting us, while China has been subverting us from within.

NSA Map: Chinese Cyber Assaults on US Economy

A secret NSA map shows the Chinese government’s massive cyber assault on all sectors of the US economy, including major firms like Google and Lockheed Martin, as well as the US government and military.

The map's red dots mark more than 600 corporate, private or government “Victims of Chinese Cyber Espionage” attacked over a five-year period, with clusters in America’s industrial centers. The entire Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston is blanketed in red, as is California’s Silicon Valley, with other concentrations in Dallas, Miami, Chicago, Seattle, L.A. and Detroit. The highest number of attacks was in California, which had almost 50.

Some of you may recall the Solyndra debacle, in which Obama declared he was promoting private enterprise, and US manufactured Solar Panels, to create jobs.  He invested $527 Million in direct loans from the Federal Financing Bank under the 2009 Stimulus Package to Solyndra -- by-passing the normal scrutiny by the Treasury Department auditors.  Private investors, thinking this was a solid, federally-backed program, invested another $1 Billion.   After all, President Bush had blessed it in 2006, so what could possibly go wrong!

Be sure you deposit $500 Million to my off-shore account

Obama visited the company in 2010, proclaiming it was "... leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future" and had hired 1,100 workers.  Below the radar, though, the OMB watchdogs noted that Obama had "... bypassed key taxpayer protections in a rush to approve the funds."

As federal auditors and investors watched helplessly, Solyndra executives were funneling the cash to offshore banks through bogus invoices to "partner companies" which existed solely to create invoices for future auditor review.

By 2011, the company executives had safely transferred virtually all the cash to a variety of offshore banks; they then decried the Chinese competition as underpriced, and therefore, Solyndra was declaring bankruptcy and firing its 1,100 workers.

A flurry of "investigations" followed, but, with Tim Geithner running the Treasury Department, and Eric Holder at the Department of Justice,  and Bob Mueller heading the FBI, not much progress was made in following up with investigations, much less prosecutions.

So, you say, why reprise this scandal!
The depths of that corruption have already been plumbed, and there's not much to be done about it now except to wring our hands and say, "thank God Obama is out of office!"

But, wait, there's more!

Well, no one ever really created an audit trail on that $1.57 Billion.
But, we do know that Obama entered office with a net worth of less than $250,000, and left with an estimated net worth of several billion dollars.  We are told that he was a frugal man and saved his money, and invested wisely.

So, where did all the money go?

It seems the Solyndra cash, along with many billions of dollars from the stimulus packages were passed through shell companies to a variety of off-shore banks in the Caribbean, China, and elsewhere in the Pacific. [Other monies, directly from the NY Fed were transferred to European and Indonesian banks in 2008 by Tim Geithner - then President of the NY Fed.  

The total that Geithner transferred to China was $15 Trillion, rapidly boosting China's GDP from $6 Trillion to nearly $13 Trillion a few short years.

And, what did Obama do with all that cash? [see comments below for China's spending]
We're slowly unraveling that as reports emanate from Trump's Treasury Department.

Obama's lifestyle at our expense
[house is based on design of a commercial Phuket estate]

As luck would have it, Obama's CIA was managing Intelligence/ Interrogation operations in a remote part of Thailand, and, while visiting, Obama decided he needed a hideaway.

The house, on 400 acres, is in the Northeast section of Thailand, near Ubol Ratchatani, a former USAF air base during the Vietnam War.  USAID had modernized the infrastructure of the area, and it showed growth promise.

Ubol Ratchatani
Obama's Insurgent HQ 

So, Solyndra, using its ill-gotten gains, bought a comfortable house, accessible to a semi-private airport [constructed by the USAF, with other attributes we'll discuss below, to accommodate Obama's international aspirations.

This is a swell spot to vacation, and to manage his Shadow Government if things get sticky elsewhere.  During his time in office, Obama visited Thailand six times, and in 2017, visited there another four times.  It apparently appeals to him.

But, aside from the obvious comfort levels, what else would take Obama to this remote part of the world!

As we've noted frequently in the past, there's more to Obama than meets the eye.

Before entering US politics, Obama was reared in an Indonesian Muslim environment, and appears on the rolls as a Muslim student [complete with a UK birth certificate from Kenya (when it was a UK colony].

In  the US with his mother (whom he later ignored and condemned), he was tutored by his Communist "father", Frank Marshall Davis who inculcated young Barack with Communist doctrine.  Once in the US, it seems that Obama's employer, the Ford Foundation, may have prepped him for the US political system, greasing the skids for a Blitzkrieg rise to the Oval Office.
Essentially, Obama is a double edged sword -- as a Communist AND an Islamic radical.

So, what, you might wonder; 

we already knew most of that history.

If you take his background, and his aborted attempts to create a Socialist/Communist state in America, he is likely now on the same path on a global basis.  He has announced he would like to lead the United Nations [probably not a certainty at this point], but, what better background to start tweaking developing countries.

He attempted to create a totalitarian Communist state in the US, populated with Muslim Brotherhood operatives, Iranians, and Communists.  He and Hillary did their best to undermine and overthrow the governments in a number of countries, and was finally outed as a result of Hillary's Benghazi fiasco -- which became a conduit of weaponry for ISIS and al Qaeda.

You may recall that Thailand has been beset by chronic Communist protests throughout the past decade, with a highly critical world Press condemning the Thai Military Government for its aggressive posture against dissidents.

Reportedly, a recent raid on the compound [quickly vacated] produced encrypted laptops,  $200 Million in gold bullion, and dozens of crates of Chinese weapons and explosives.

[The Thai government reportedly confiscated the estate under the provisions of the ASEAN Declaration to Joint Action on Counter Terrorism.]

That is not an aberration in either case, since the Communists have tried to overthrow the Thai Government since the mid-1950s.

NE Thailand Insurgency

Thailand was strengthened as a US ally during the Vietnam War, all the time fighting a Chinese  Communist insurgency supplied via Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in the Northeast, and a Muslim insurgency at the border with Malaysia.

So, here, we get a two-fer. 

The insurgency in NE Thailand was headquartered right across the Cambodian border from Sisaket during the Vietnam War, while supplies and cadre crossed the river from Laos [via a North Vietnamese Binh Tram (logistics unit)] to operate near Ubol and Nakhon Phanom [NKP](another US air base)].

Obama's Mansion is strategically positioned

It was a viable and dynamic insurgent movement, with cadre recruited locally and trained in China, from which they would return to the region to recruit local villagers.

Mr Obama's Mansion is/was perfectly located to coordinate future insurgent paramilitary operations in this region already prepped for a renewed political offensive.

While in office as POTUS, Obama appointed Glyn Davies as his Ambassador, who immediately upon arriving, began supporting dissidents and supporting enemies of the Thai state.  This was in tune with the unwelcome UN involvement in Thailand which drew extreme criticism.
[and you'll recall how well UN involvement in the internal affairs of South Africa worked out.]

At the conclusion of the Vietnam War, a few stray bombs released from US F4s found their way across the Cambodian border, setting off more than 300 secondary explosions, incinerating insurgent soldiers, food stores, and weapon/ammunition stocks -- and essentially ending the insurgency.

What we learned later was that Henry Kissinger, in a 1972 letter to Chou en Lai, assured China that the US had no further interest in the region and would not interfere in a Chinese Communist incursion.  At the same time, Henry shut down all existing and clandestine Intelligence networks, some of which dated back to World-War-2 OSS nets.

Without those established nets, it would be difficult to monitor the flow of political activists and insurgent cadre and combatants as they flow in from China to be guided by Obama -- and Soros.

To tie all this information together,
Solyndra used the cash it siphoned from the US federal loans and private investors to acquire a number of real estate properties scattered about in Southeast Asia, valued at over $800 million. 

Given Trump's interest in these matters, we expect him to encourage other Southeast Asian countries to employ the ASEAN Declaration to Joint Action on Counter Terrorism.

--------

Editorial Notes:

1) I have some relevant knowledge of this situation as I served as the Regional Intelligence Advisor to the Thai Communist Suppressions Operations Command [CSOC (Now ISOC)], coordinating the Counter-Insurgency operations, in another lifetime.

2) Update 1MAY2019]: 

I visited Thailand recently and learned that, after Kissinger [in Nixon's name] ordered all US troops out of Southeast Asia, and simultaneously, shut down all US Intelligence operations [covert and clandestine], his Domino Theory almost succeeded in placing all of Southeast Asia in Communist hands. 

By 1975, virtually all US forces had departed, as had all Intelligence officers, so, an event which could have sparked World War 3 was not reported in Intelligence Circles - although Kissinger was likely fully aware.  

PRC forces from Yunnan assembled in northern Laos
and invaded the Chiang Rai region with infantry, armor,
and combat air support in 1975 - but were defeated.

Coincidentally, in 1975, the Peoples Republic of China [PRC] invaded northern Thailand from Yunnan Province, via Laos and Burma, near Chiang Rai.  

Thai Defense forces and the Nationalist Chinese [KMT], along with Hmong tribesmen, and a few Australian Military advisors, fought the PRC forces for three years, suffering thousands of casualties [a memorial exists today, with the names of all the casualties, at the site of the battles.

Eventually, the PRC withdrew, and left Thailand, only to support insurgent organizations to undermine the Thai government. 

[As an aside, some may remember the movie "Apocalypse Now" which described the hunt for, and assassination of Colonel Kurtz - whom the DS designated as a devil.  The movie portrays hundreds of bodies hanging from the swamp trees of Kurtz's camp ; those were Khmer Rouge, who had slaughtered, at random, millions of Cambodians merely because they were educated.  

On the positive side, "Colonel" Kurtz, was an advisor to the Mountain People, who were guerrillas fighting to keep Southeast Asia from succumbing to communism.  Watch the embedded video, all the way through the commentary after the Movie extract; it gives you an idea of what war is really like, and how it affects honorable men.]

Currently, the PRC is attempting an economic takeover of all Southeast Asia by investing, with loans to build national infrastructures, constructing dams for hydro-electric power, high speed rail, improving ports -- all with the trillions of dollars funneled to China via Indonesia in 2008 by Timothy Geithner while he was President of the NY Fed [he is currently a financial advisor to the PRC].  

Water remains a critical issue as China's plans for dams to furnish hydro-electric power throughout the region will flood farmland and/or cut off vital water supplies to farmers.  

In Laos, farmers complained that the Chinese routinely open and close dam spillways, sending tidal waves ten to 15 feet high roaring down rivers, inundating farms and wiping out crops.  

Additionally, since dams have been built in a hurry with little or no oversight, several of  have collapsed, causing death and destruction downstream.

Although the improvements are welcome, the governments of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Myanmar (Burma) are uncertain how they will repay these loans, which if unpaid, will result in the PRC seizing infrastructure assets and surrounding land.



The Third Prong on this economic threat, Chinese control of ports in Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Singapore.  As a part of what is now called the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road [MSR], it is clear that China's expansion strategy focuses on controlling regional ports, as well as those around the world.  

A fourth prong, though little known and yet to be accomplished enterprise is the Kra Canal, which will cross southern Thailand opening a sea lane from the South China Sea to the Andaman Sea, bypassing the Malacca Strait -- a maritime choke point adding enormous distance to maritime traffic between the two seas.  



The canal has considerable merit, 
but the reality is that China will control that conduit at the expense of Thailand, and the rest of Asia.

Global strategists have dubbed China's expansion into these sectors as the "Debt-Trap Diplomacy" - offered up as helping local economies through the "Belt and Road Initiative", but in reality, these huge developmental loans serve little to improve local life, but instead choke national economies with massive debt for unsound projects to secure Chinese access to resources or local markets. 

Cash strapped countries end up turning over their ports, their land, and their resources to China (just as Venezuela turned over its oil industry to China) when they can't meet their debt payments.  

In essence, China uses economic leverage in place of Military force to conquer target countries.  
The strategy is Wei Chi, or encirclement; in this case economic domination of regional and global ports cripples the ability to resist Chinese domination.  

From a military perspective, this high-speed rail could deliver troops and weapons system quickly and efficiently throughout Southeast Asia from Kunming to Singapore in a matter of hours.  Controlling internal waterways through dams allows for domination of the regional agriculture, and, control of ports means China declares what is imported or exported - thus controlling the economies of these countries. 

What the PRC could not seize through Military aggression, they are slowly seizing through economics.  
  
It seems that the Deep State's emissaries [i.e., GHW Bush, Clinton, G W Bush, Obama, and Kissinger] were routinely visiting the region from 1990-2016 to ensure China was not meeting any resistance in its expansion, and they would all profit immensely with China in control.  

Why have we not heard of these issues?  

Well, it's been reported, but the Obama cabal generated a great deal of noise and attention on the Russia, Russia, Russia meme to distract us from the Chinese economic - and Military threat.

Ultimately, the strategy has been to undermine the US to provide the PRC with full control, regionally, and eventually, globally.

Give that some thought as you listen to the Deep State Media continue the hysterics over Trump's alleged connections to Russia, Russia. Russia!

Comrade de Blasio - Staging the Deep State's USSA

Comrade de Blasio
Staging the Deep State's USSA

As we do periodically, we publish a post from another author 

when it conveys a message better than we could.  

In this case, Michael Goodwin of the New York Post wrote an Opinion Piece 

in September 2017 which warned of the dangers of reelecting Mayor de Blasio, 

who declared his intention to transition New York City into a Communist state.  

Goodwin's argument went for naught as New Yorkers, embracing de Blasio's 

communist rhetoric, reelected him with a landslide victory - likely 

anticipating that they could seize private property.  We'll see.

If you'd like to refresh your memory on how a transition to Communism 

works, and to educate friends and family, we recommend the 1965 movie

Dr Zhivago which can stand as a documentary.

-----

Click here for original article:
Michael Goodwin, NY Post 05SEP17


Dear fellow Democrats:

To judge from the polls and personal experience, many of you are somewhere between lukewarm and ice cold toward Mayor Bill de Blasio. You love that crime keeps falling and that murders are headed for a record low, but worry that the growing disorder on the streets smells like trouble is coming.

You have never seen so many vagrants, and so many of them looking deranged and dangerous. Why didn’t he tackle the problem in the beginning, instead of denying the obvious — that the numbers were exploding?

You also don’t like it that the subways are a mess, traffic is pretty much congested everywhere all the time and bicycle riders are treated as privileged characters even as they routinely flaunt safety laws.

You pay the nation’s highest taxes, but it’s never enough.
The cost of living here is out of control, despite what looks and feels like diminished public services.

Columbus Statue

Streets are filthy, roads are rutted, yet every time you turn around, City Hall is focused on race, gender and identity politics, as if that’s what working people care about most. 

Is the mayor really going to take down the Christopher Columbus statue in — of all places — Columbus Circle? What would they call it — de Blasio Circle? Al Sharpton Circle? Columbus statue may get an 'explanation' plaque! 

ED NOTE:

[de Blasio's proposal met with such a public outcry that he backed down from this fairly stupid proposal]

Lopez Rivera [Puerto Rican Terrorist]

Police are getting assassinated, jihadists threaten to destroy America — and City Hall honors a Puerto Rican terrorist.

[“It’s repulsive, I’m sick to my stomach,” said retired NYPD Detective Tony Senft, 70, who lost an eye while diffusing one of Rivera's bombs at a Manhattan courthouse in 1982."]




You care about public schools, but the mayor’s claim of great progress sounds fishy. 

de Blasio's Socialist School System

If graduation rates and test scores were so easy to fix, why didn’t it happen before? Are the numbers real, or are they faked to make the mayor look good?

And why did he relax discipline standards, when every parent knows that one troublemaker can ruin a class for 30 kids?

Then there’s the mayor’s relentless war against charter schools, especially those that have a proven record of success. It feels immoral to sacrifice the future of at-risk children for the benefit of a union that is bloated with donations and political connections, yet de Blasio never misses an opportunity to create frictions instead of solutions.

His reflexive dishonesty is a big, big problem.
The “city for sale” allegations ring true, and it’s not satisfying that just because the mayor skipped an indictment, he deserves a second term. So as election season approaches, starting with next week’s primary, you’re not sure what to do.

Then you read about de Blasio’s interview with New York magazine.
Your first thought is, it’s a miracle he didn’t break both arms patting himself on the back.

Anyone reading his comments without living here would conclude that the Great Helmsman has single-handedly turned Gotham into the Garden of Eden. Look at my record, he insisted, saying it deserved “parades out in the streets.” He boasted of “my policies and my leadership” and declared himself a great manager. Me, me, me, my, my, my. It was tacky — and not at all reflective of the New York you live in. Naturally, for anything wrong, it was “Don’t blame me.”

de Blasio's Communist Linkage 

He complained that a “tabloid culture” — The New York Post in particular — causes the “hateful, negative, divisive” public tone of politics, just before he denounced the rich, criticized Governor Andrew Cuomo and tore into President Trump as “profoundly racist.”

It got worse from there.
In comments to interviewer Chris Smith, the mayor dropped his re-election smiley face to reveal his inner dictator, one who would banish individual rights and constitutional safeguards — all in the name of fairness, as he defines it.
“Our legal system is structured to favor private property,” he said, insisting that “people would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be.”



For good measure, he added:
“If I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see.”

You certainly wish government could move faster and get things done with common sense, but the idea that Bill de Blasio and his corrupt crew would have the power to determine how every slice of land is used is unAmerican.

Your house is no longer yours, it will belong to "the people"

You have a house — suppose he wants to demolish it.
Do you want him to have that power?
Then you realize, this is the progressive vision of government he’s always talking about, the idea that a select few should decide what is good for the rest of us and have the power to implement it.



["All are equal, but some are more equal than others" 
-- as George Orwell noted in Animal Farm]

It is profoundly anti-democratic, yet that’s the world he wants to see.
Is that what a second term holds?
Is he going to spring ideas like that after the election?
Beyond the arrogance, the mayor’s ignorance about American history and the Founders’ intent, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence’s guarantee of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” is appalling.

Your children know better! So what to do?
Here, my fellow Democrats, is a modest proposal.
Send him a message.
Vote “NO” in the primary by voting for someone else. Anyone else!.

Whatever you do, just make it clear to de Blasio that you don’t approve of his message.
He’ll probably win anyway, but, hopefully, by a narrow margin.

That would get his attention — and remind him of who’s the boss.
That alone would be a true public service for all New Yorkers.
----
ED Note:
[Mayor de Blasio was reelected to a second term with 66% of the votes on 6NOV2018.  
The "have-nots" presume they will be able to live in the homes of the evicted homeowners in NYC.  
Welcome to Communism, folks]

de Blasio's announcements:
"You saw some important changes in the last four years. But you ain't seen nothing yet!"

1) Prosecutors closed an investigation into his fund-raising practices, but filed no charges, while criticizing his ignoring election laws and the courtroom testimony of "pay-to-play" crook Jona Rechnitz, who claimed his 6-figure campaign donations gave him direct access to the Mayor.

2)  In November, 2018, de Blasio fired NYPD Deputy Police Chief Michael Osgood, and then fired Investigation Commissioner Mark Peters, both managing investigation of Sex Crimes and the Special Victims Division; Peters had issued a scathing report on administrative issues in the Administration for Children's Services.  [Could de Blasio be shutting down NYPD's investigations into Human Trafficking, tied to the Deep State?]

3) In 2016, there were five major investigations being conducted on de Blasio by 
Federal, State, and City entities.

More scandals to come?
Will New Yorkers ignore this march to Communism, turning the Big Apple into the Big Toilet?

For those of you who remember history, and Mayor Dinkins' near success in destroying New York City, keep in mind that his protege' was none other than Mr de Blasio.  

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"