Sunday, February 5, 2017



Trump’s National Security Adviser Puts Iran “On Notice;” Foreshadowing Of War

The new boss is now starting to look extremely similar to the old boss. Today, February 2, Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor, rabid anti-Iran warmonger, Michael Flynn, delivered a stern and open warning to Iran, officially “putting Iran on notice.” Thus, it seems that the United States is setting its sights on the next piece of the geopolitical puzzle before the ultimate goal of Russia and world hegemony is to be recognized. 

Flynn cited only two justifications for his threat, neither of which are logical or anything but unproven allegations. First, Flynn is attributing an alleged attempted missile attack on U.S. Naval ships parked off the coast of Yemen supposedly committed by Houthi Rebels. Second, Flynn argues that a recent ballistic missile test conducted by Iran violates the P5+1 and United Nations backed nuclear deal.

Flynn claimed that Iran has recently become “emboldened” because the Obama administration, the same administration which forced Iran to decimate their nuclear power program at the barrel of a gun, was “weak and ineffective.”

“In these and other similar activities, Iran continues to threaten US friends and allies in the region,” Flynn stated. Translation: Iran’s existence and refusal to knuckle under to foreign dictates represents a threat to the impunity of Saudi Arabia and Israel.

In regards to Flynn’s statements, it is important to note that the Iranophobic warmonger leaves out a number of points. First, Flynn lays the blame of Houthi missile attacks at the feet of Iran because, according to him, Iran somehow controls the Houthis or, at the very least, supports them. While it would be na├»ve to believe that the Houthis are receiving no support from outside forces, the fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that Iran is doing so. Indeed, the alleged missile attacks themselves are highly questionable, with some believing that they were actually a false flag on the part of the United States in order to justify a bombing campaign in Yemen on a flimsy basis of self-defense. This basis is flimsy because the United States does, after all, have its ships right off the coast of Yemen and it is supporting the Saudi war of aggression.

Second, if the Iranians are now guilty because of unproven claims of support for Houthi rebels who are themselves only acting in self-defense against a brutal and horrific Saudi campaign of terror, murder, and starvation against the people of Yemen, then the United States is officially complicit in the beheading of young children, rape, torture, starvation, and cannibalism as a result of their support for “moderate” terrorists in Syria. Of course, the latter statement is actually true since it is the United States who funds, trains, supplies, and directs the terrorist proxies in Syria to this day.

Not only that, even if the Houthis did fire on American boats, it must be remembered that the United States is aiding the country who is invading theirs and thus makes itself a reasonable military target when stationed so close to Yemeni shores.

Still, one must pay attention to the logic: “We supported a country in a war of aggression against a rag tag group of rebels and those rebels attempted (possibly) to fight back. Therefore, we must threaten a third party whom we cannot even prove supports the rebels.”

In regards to the ballistic missile test, the new aggression is being based upon tests conducted by Iran over the weekend on a medium-range ballistic missile.

Yet, for all the brow-beating of the United States since the Iranian nuclear deal was signed, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 does not prohibit Iran from testing a missile or a ballistic missile. There is a provision which “calls on” Iran not to undertake any activity that relates to ballistic missiles but “calling on” and “prohibiting” are two different things. As Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute writes, “There are no specific provisions in the nuclear deal that explicitly prevent Iran from testing a missile.”

Flynn has been so anti-Iran in the past that his subordinates were both confused and alarmed. In 2012, after the Benghazi attack, Flynn began demanding that those under his command at the Defense Intelligence Agency immediately produce evidence that Iran was behind the attack. If that kind of frantic framing of false intelligence sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered a similar intelligence agency initiative in the wake of 9/11 in order to blame Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Flynn was even fired from the DIA in 2014 for being too anti-Iran even for the Obama administration, a truly amazing feat in its own right.

“Adding together President Trump’s call to the Saudi king, where they discussed Iran’s “destabilizing” actions, and a pre-emptive war authorization bill languishing in the US House, the current danger of a US strike on Iran is just an accident — or a false flag – away,” writes McAdams.
Flynn was head of the DIA at the time when the now famous memo was produced explaining the fact that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other Gulf States as well as the United States were supporting terrorism in Syria and Iraq and that Russia, Syria, and Iran were fighting it. The memo also described the plan and support for creating a “salafist principality” in the east of Syria and West of Iraq, the precise location where ISIS created its caliphate. For this reason, Flynn cannot claim ignorance as to whom is actually supporting terrorism and who is fighting it.

Researcher Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report makes Flynn’s bizarre statements clearer by writing,
As Flynn furiously flipped through the pages of his statement, he was signifying the predictable betrayal of the so-called “Iran deal,” meant before it was even introduced the public – as early as 2009 – to serve as a pretext not for peace, but for war with Iran.
US corporate-financier funded think tank, the Brookings Institution, in a 2009 policy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (.pdf) would lay out in detail various means of provoking war and regime change against Iran.
In it, Brookings explicitly revealed how a “superb offer” would be given to Iran, only to be intentionally revoked in a manner portraying Iran as ungrateful:
…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.
The so-called “Iran deal,” introduced during the administration of US President Barack Obama, represents precisely this “superb offer,” with Flynn’s accusations serving as the “turn down” ahead of the “sorrowful” war and attempted regime change the US had always planned to target Tehran with.
In fact, Flynn would seemingly draw almost verbatim from the ploy described by Brookings in 2009, by stating:
Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened … As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.
Flynn’s statement is particularly surreal – considering Yemeni fighters are only targeting Saudi warships because Saudi Arabia is currently waging full-scale war on Yemen. Accused on all sides of war crimes, and with the US itself even restricting weapon sales to Riyadh – if only symbolically – in response to Saudi Arabia’s aggression – Flynn still claims that the attack on Saudi Arabia’s warship constitutes justification for putting Iran “on notice.”
Claiming that Iran is “sponsoring terrorism” throughout the region, when it is currently a major member of the coalition fighting the DIA’s “Salafist principality” in both Iraq and Syria is also surreal.
While the goal was originally to topple Syria as Libya was destroyed previously before moving on to Iran and then to Russia, it appears now that perhaps, with Syria so significantly weakened, the country no longer provides an immediate military resistance to the NATO war machine and Iran, having been weakened by its necessary involvement in the Syrian crisis, can be moved up on the chopping block. [1]

Cartalucci writes, “Meanwhile, the political climate in the West has been so expertly manipulated that the public is either so distracted with identity politics that they are unaware and unconcerned with the prospect of war with Iran, or so hysterical over “Islam” that any nation perceived as being Muslim is seen as justifiably a target of US military aggression – regardless of how divergent any of these alternate realities are from actual reality.”
In the past, it was assumed that, with a Republican President, the American people get a new war and an anti-war movement but, with a Democrat, Americans just get a new war. While many in the real anti-war community have expected anti-war protesters to pop up out of the blue with the election of a Republican President, this time might be different. This time, American “leftist” protesters are so concerned with continuing abortions, sex changes, and racial identity that they are less likely to find the time to protest wars overseas, even if it is an attempt to be trendy as opposed to a real moral conviction. The right-wing, however, never seeing a war it didn’t like and already so radicalized against “Islam” and Iran, will be primed to support the war effort in full.

Flynn’s warning represents two possibilities. At best, Trump has no control over his own military. At worst, the Trump administration is nothing but a clear continuation of the Obama and Bush regime’s agenda of Anglo-American world hegemony. Judging by Trump’s appointments to cabinet positions, we are not hopeful. Unfortunately, judging by today’s threats, we are also not filled with hope in our desire for peace and reason to prevail.

[1] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. “The Grand Chessboard: America Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives.” Basic Books. 1st Edition, 1998.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 850 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)

Sunday, January 29, 2017


Number 5 is the pivotal point where FENG SHUI is an understanding that to stay in balance we must be able to CHANGE from the DARK & LIGHT, as a dancing energy in time immortal.

FOOD is the key to survival in the coming time of the Billionaires, Trillionaires and Quadzillionaires to realize there is no separation.  LESSONS are about learning how to be in balance as the universe spins into a never-ending spiral of life.

To be continued.  Videos and other stuff to be posted soon.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016


There are nine [9] compartments / chambers in the brain.  Each compartment/chamber has a treasure / gift.  When we use less than seven (7) percent of our brain, then we definitely must not complain about the reality of ineptitude.

THE MIND is in every cell of the body.  The Body is an instrument for the energy that is an unseen power which infinitely experiences the reality of countless seen forms.

The nose is how to line up number one (1), the hairline is where the BEAK HANDS after gathering energy in a deep inhalation, as in an acupuncture point, touch #1, and exhale.  Inhale and exhale nine (9) times in each compartment / chamber.

To be continued ... a video is in production and to be posted so we can become the whole being we are ...

U.S Constitution isn't a piece of paper George W. Bush and not pesky either Hillary Clinton

Monday, November 21, 2016




After Hillary Clinton’s disastrous defeat in the US presidential election, George Soros and other influential liberal donors in Washington D.C. are mulling tactics for resisting a new “Trump order.”

Last week George Soros and a group of rich American donors, which placed their bet on Hillary Clinton and lost, held a three-day conference in Washington D.C. to set things right. 

Citing documents obtained by US author and journalist Kenneth P. Vogel called attention to the fact that the meeting was sponsored by the influential Democracy Alliance donor club and brought together “leaders of most leading unions and liberal groups, as well as darlings of the left such as House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairman Keith Ellison.” According to the journalist, the conference, which followed the “shocking victory” of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, was aimed at working out a plan to resist economic and political changes which are due to be introduced by the US President-elect. In other words, the “liberals plan full-on trench warfare against Trump from Day One,” Vogel suggested.

The journalist quoted Gara LaMarche, the president of the Democracy Alliance (DA), who highlighted that the meeting would start the process of assessing “what steps we will take together to resist the assaults that are coming and take back power, beginning in the states in 2017 and 2018.”

On November 17 the journalist signaled that “the process” was gaining pace. Vogel reported that David Brock, founder of liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America and Clinton’s longstanding loyalist, “emailed more than 200 of the biggest donors on the left,” including George Soros. Brock offered the magnates to join a series of gatherings to discuss “the next steps for progressives under a Trump Administration,” the journalist noted, quoting emails obtained by “What better way to spend the inaugural weekend than talking about how to kick Donald Trump’s ass?” Brock remarked, as cited by the US journalist.
Commenting on the issue in his article for New Eastern Outlook Martin Berger, an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst, sees these developments as signaling a “veritable war against Trump.”

Berger pointed out that it is no secret that George Soros has had a hand in anti-Trump demonstrations which had erupted following Trump’s victory. 

For instance, one of the groups behind the protest movement,, could have been funded by Soros, as one of the Podesta files released by Wikileaks indicates. Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic a strikingly similar situation is unfolding. In his recent interview with Sputnik Deutschland, Willy Wimmer, former Parliamentary State Secretary in the German Defense Ministry, drew attention to the recent meeting between outgoing US President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. According to the German politician the US “war establishment” which has long supported Hillary Clinton, is seeking to thwart Trump’s potential foreign policy shift away from perpetual wars. Following Clinton’s defeat the “war establishment” has pinned its hopes on Angela Merkel, he noted, as a “bulwark” against Donald Trump in Europe. “So far, Mrs. Merkel would be given a role of the ‘last resistance fighter against newly elected American President Trump’,” Wimmer pointed out. “We are dealing with a sort of international ‘collective policy’ pursued by Democrats together with the ‘war establishment’ of Democrats and Republicans in Washington. So, there is a certain role offered to Mrs. Merkel. If one remembers what Merkel said last week regarding the US presidential election, one will see that she is willing to play this role,” he underscored. “If I were sitting in Washington I would probably think that there is a conspiracy brewing against me,” the German politician noted, referring to Soros’ recent gathering described by Vogel.

Saturday, November 5, 2016


Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton listens to a question during the town hall debate at Washington University on October 9, 2016 in St Louis, Missouri.

New FBI release on Clinton email probe refers to 'Shadow Government'  FBI releases trove of Clinton documents  

A new trove of interview summaries and notes from the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails lays out a series of allegations that could prove fodder for future attacks on the Democratic presidential nominee.

The 100 pages, released Monday morning, include claims that Clinton "blatantly" disregarded protocol. Other claims include that a group of powerful State Department employees attempted to coordinate a document release, and that a department official asked for a "quid pro quo" related to the former secretary of state's emails.

The documents, part four of four to be released by the FBI, include notes and interview summaries that may illuminate more about the bureau's decision not to recommend Clinton be prosecuted for her actions.

Many Republicans have criticized that decision, but FBI Director James Comey has repeatedly insisted the move was apolitical.

"I want the American people to know we really did this the right way. You can disagree with us, but you cannot fairly say we did it in any kind of political way," Comey said in July. "We don't carry water for anybody. We were trying to do what the right thing is." 

One revelation in the documents came from an interview with an unidentified person who suggested that Freedom of Information Act requests related to Clinton went through a group sometimes called "the Shadow Government."

"There was a powerful group of very high-ranking STATE officials that some referred to as 'The 7th Floor Group' or 'The Shadow Government.' This group met every Wednesday afternoon to discuss the FOIA process, Congressional records, and everything CLINTON-related to FOIA/Congressional inquiries," the FBI's interview summary said.

That group, according to the summary, argued for a Clinton document release to be conducted all at once "for coordination purposes" instead of on a rolling basis as would normally be the case. But the "Shadow Government" did not get its way, and the agency in charge decided for a rolling release, the FBI summary said.

Another claim from the documents is that one unidentified interviewee said Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pressured the FBI to unclassify certain emails from Clinton's private server that were previously deemed classified.

The interviewee said Kennedy contacted the FBI to ask for the change in classification in "exchange for a 'quid pro quo.'"

A representative for the State Department categorically denied that claim.

"This allegation is inaccurate and does not align with the facts. To be clear: the State Department did upgrade the document at the request of the FBI when we released it back in May 2015," State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner said.

"Under Secretary Kennedy sought to understand the FBI's process for withholding certain information from public release," Toner added. "As has been reported, there have been discussions within the interagency on issues of classification. Classification is an art, not a science, and individuals with classification authority sometimes have different views. There can be applicable FOIA exemptions that are based on both classified and unclassified rules."

The FBI also denied such a "quid pro quo," offering NBC News the following statement:
"Prior to the initiation of the FBI's investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server, the FBI was asked to review and make classification determinations on FBI emails and information which were being produced by the State Department pursuant to FOIA. The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level. A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption. A now-retired FBI official, who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation, told the State Department official that they would look into the matter. Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official, during the same conversation, the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad. Following the call, the FBI official consulted with a senior FBI executive responsible for determining the classification of the material and determined the email was in fact appropriately classified at the Secret level. The FBI official subsequently told the senior State official that the email was appropriately classified at the Secret level and that the FBI would not change the classification of the email. The classification of the email was not changed, and it remains classified today. Although there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review."
Separately, one claim from the FBI documents that was receiving attention online was that one interviewee said there was a "stark difference" between Clinton's "obedience to security and diplomatic protocols" and that of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Clinton, the interviewee said, "blatantly" disregarded such protocols, including her frequent refusal to attend foreign diplomatic functions with the local ambassador.

"This frequently resulted in complaints by ambassadors who were insulted and embarrassed by this breach of protocol," the interview summary said, adding that the subject claimed that "Clinton's protocol breaches were well known throughout Diplomatic Security and were 'abundant.'"

—NBC News and Reuters contributed to this report.