Figuring out what the global power elite are trying to accomplish requires no crystal ball or decoder ring. They say it openly, every day, in speeches and publications that are freely available to the public. Join us this week on The Corbett Report as we dive into some of the enemy propaganda to see if we can find what the oligarchs are thinking…and what they are planning to do next.
Documentation
Documentation – OSINT = Open Source Intelligence
Time Reference:
03:52
Description:
From an article about the utility of OSINT by the CIA and hosted on their website. Go there if you dare.
An absolute must-watch speech about the transformation of military strategy at the Pentagon. It is extremely revealing about where the Pentagon has been and what they are thinking about the future.
An absolutely essential resource for 9/11 broadcasts as they unfolded, available for download in high quality. Please download and back up this valuable information.
Documentation – Sen. Schumer proposes “no-ride list” for Amtrak trains
Time Reference:
58:33
Description:
A senator on Sunday called for a “no-ride list” for Amtrak trains after intelligence gleaned from the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound pointed to potential attacks on the nation’s train system.
Documentation – Clinton Gave China Chips for Nuke Warfare
Time Reference:
1:05:38
Description:
Newly declassified documents show that President Bill Clinton personally approved the transfer to China of advanced space technology that can be used for nuclear combat.
He’s really puffing Donny up as the globalist killer lately…
QUOTE (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
TRUMP: From this date forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first.
(CHEERING)
SIEGEL: Big cheer there, David Brooks, for America first. How different do you think America’s role in the world is going to be under President Donald Trump?
BROOKS: Well, he’s going to try to make it different. Again, the zero-sum thinking, if they’re winning, we’re losing. Second, a reorientation of our politics. Both parties have been pretty pro the post-World War II institutions, the pro – the institutions of globalization. He clearly is going to be opposed to them. There are not many people in this country or in this government at least who agree with him. Even within his own Cabinet most do not agree with him.
And so one of the things that’ll be interesting to me, there was sort of a slight difference – or a large difference between Trump the inaugural speaker and Trump at the luncheon who was very much the insider, palsy (ph) palsy with all the insiders. And so when push comes to shove on foreign policy issues, is he going to side with Gen. Mattis and some of the insiders who are much more pro-globalist, or will he stay with Steve Bannon? That, to me, is one of the large foreign policy questions.
SIEGEL: E.J., I went back to read the remarks of John F. Kennedy in his inaugural, that the U.S. would pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. What a dramatic change since those days in terms of presidential rhetoric.
DIONNE: The radical nationalism in this speech is a break with pretty much every president in the post-World War II era, and that Kennedy quote is a particularly good representation of that view. I mean, we’ve got to remember, America first is a very vexed slogan in our history. It was the slogan of those who didn’t want to intervene in World War II against Hitler. And I think what’s troubling is that if he were talking about just trade deals and saying a lot of Americans have gotten a bad shake out of trade deals, there were a lot of people who would agree with him and say we’ve got to do better by those folks.
But when he uses this language, it sounds like he wants to take apart international systems, international agreements, international organizations that on the whole have served American interests quite well for a very long time, NATO prominent among them. And so when I heard that today, again, I think for those who are inclined to worry about Trump, his extreme nationalism raised those worries, it didn’t appease them more or reduce them.
SIEGEL: But, David, nationalism is – it’s a big flavor of the year, not just in the U.S.
DIONNE: You’re right about that.
BROOKS: Yeah, welcome to the 21st century. I mean, it’s Vladimir Putin, it’s Marine Le Pen, it’s UKIP party in the U.K., this is a global movement. And I think the Trump people, especially Steve Bannon, are extremely conscious that this is like Marxism in 1905. They see this as the rising movement for our century and defeating what had been the globalist agenda of the 20th century, and who knows, they may be right. I hope they’re not. The one final thing I just want to say about Trump is it’s easy to say, oh, he’s a little like Andrew Jackson, or he’s an outsider like Jimmy Carter. One of the takeaways from today is he’s like nobody. We’ve never had a president remotely like him.
NY Times columnist David Brooks describes the NWO on PBS News Hour.
https://youtu.be/cqlUf4TDMBk?t=2m24s
David Brooks can’t stop talking about the globalists…
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/510828583/week-in-politics-president-trumps-inauguration
He’s really puffing Donny up as the globalist killer lately…
QUOTE
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
TRUMP: From this date forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first.
(CHEERING)
SIEGEL: Big cheer there, David Brooks, for America first. How different do you think America’s role in the world is going to be under President Donald Trump?
BROOKS: Well, he’s going to try to make it different. Again, the zero-sum thinking, if they’re winning, we’re losing. Second, a reorientation of our politics. Both parties have been pretty pro the post-World War II institutions, the pro – the institutions of globalization. He clearly is going to be opposed to them. There are not many people in this country or in this government at least who agree with him. Even within his own Cabinet most do not agree with him.
And so one of the things that’ll be interesting to me, there was sort of a slight difference – or a large difference between Trump the inaugural speaker and Trump at the luncheon who was very much the insider, palsy (ph) palsy with all the insiders. And so when push comes to shove on foreign policy issues, is he going to side with Gen. Mattis and some of the insiders who are much more pro-globalist, or will he stay with Steve Bannon? That, to me, is one of the large foreign policy questions.
SIEGEL: E.J., I went back to read the remarks of John F. Kennedy in his inaugural, that the U.S. would pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. What a dramatic change since those days in terms of presidential rhetoric.
DIONNE: The radical nationalism in this speech is a break with pretty much every president in the post-World War II era, and that Kennedy quote is a particularly good representation of that view. I mean, we’ve got to remember, America first is a very vexed slogan in our history. It was the slogan of those who didn’t want to intervene in World War II against Hitler. And I think what’s troubling is that if he were talking about just trade deals and saying a lot of Americans have gotten a bad shake out of trade deals, there were a lot of people who would agree with him and say we’ve got to do better by those folks.
But when he uses this language, it sounds like he wants to take apart international systems, international agreements, international organizations that on the whole have served American interests quite well for a very long time, NATO prominent among them. And so when I heard that today, again, I think for those who are inclined to worry about Trump, his extreme nationalism raised those worries, it didn’t appease them more or reduce them.
SIEGEL: But, David, nationalism is – it’s a big flavor of the year, not just in the U.S.
DIONNE: You’re right about that.
BROOKS: Yeah, welcome to the 21st century. I mean, it’s Vladimir Putin, it’s Marine Le Pen, it’s UKIP party in the U.K., this is a global movement. And I think the Trump people, especially Steve Bannon, are extremely conscious that this is like Marxism in 1905. They see this as the rising movement for our century and defeating what had been the globalist agenda of the 20th century, and who knows, they may be right. I hope they’re not. The one final thing I just want to say about Trump is it’s easy to say, oh, he’s a little like Andrew Jackson, or he’s an outsider like Jimmy Carter. One of the takeaways from today is he’s like nobody. We’ve never had a president remotely like him.