Donald Trump Silent On White Helmets Scandal.

by Jerry Alatalo

Among the participants and attendees of the December 20, 2018 United Nations meeting on the activities of the White Helmets were Syrian Ambassador Bashar Jaafari and Russian Federation Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia

eople who watch the DECEMBER 20, 2018 United Nations meeting, which presented evidence of horrific crimes committed inside Syria by the so-called “rescue” organization and Academy Award-winning “White Helmets”, will come to a full understanding of the true reason U.S. President Donald Trump went on Twitter (Date: DECEMBER 19, 2018).

President Trump announced a major, surprise change in his administration’s foreign policy 24 hours before the U.N. meeting exposing the White Helmets international scandal – and wrote that, essentially: “We (U.S. military forces) are leaving Syria … immediately!”. Is it possible, or even probable, that Mr. Trump was aware of the U.N. meeting scheduled for the 20th of December, and that his no-cost Twitter foreign policy statement was delivered to place a global media roadblock in front of the White Helmets bombshell, set to explode the next day?

We sense the answer is “yes”. However, the only way of knowing for certain is hearing from Donald Trump himself for his opinion of the “extremely inconvenient, taboo…” details presented at the December 20 event. Trump’s 12/19/2018 action, a military psychological operation if the described theory becomes proved true, was put forward to soak up all global media attention, which indeed was the result. In other words, – Mr. Trump took a calculated public relations action to protect the diminishing reputation of the White Helmets, or to bury any chance of any appreciable amount of people worldwide learning details of the White Helmets criminal scandal revealed on 12/20/2018.

Developments in the near (3) weeks since Trump’s announcement seem to confirm the theory. Donald Trump and members of his administration have not said anything about the White Helmets in those (3) weeks, – most especially relaying nothing publicly whatsoever about, or since, the damning December 20 U.N. meeting.

Trump’s Twitter action could be described using Trump terminology as “fantastic, and very successful”; very few people worldwide heard news of the White Helmets scandal revealed at the December 20 United Nations meeting; Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton has issued, as more than once in the past, a warning to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad about potential use of chemical weapons, and, once more, threatening the severest of military responses.

With the already-suffering reputation of the White Helmets terrorist group effectively “saved” thanks to Donald Trump’s Twitter psychological operation and public relations fix, the rising odds for another false flag chemical attack in Syria (possibly Israel due to growing Neocon desperation) becomes more plausible as a predictive. This creates legitimate worries that another deception-based military response from the United States (Trump), United Kingdom (May) and France (Macron) will bring much more unnecessary death,injury and harm than previous illegal bombing operations.

What public responses, if any, have the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron issued on this very serious matter?

Who will become the first courageous U.S. journalist submitting to the president of the United States of America the following question?

“With respect to extremely troubling revelations made on December 20 at the United Nations, President Trump, could you please share with Americans and people of the world your honest assessment of the White Helmets?”

Future history books may record, teach and describe the 2-hour December 20, 2018 meeting at the United Nations as a pivotal and important, world changing event

***

(Thank you to Nizar Abboud at YouTube)

Advertisements

Humanity At Crossroad 2019: 9/11 Truth Or World War III?

by Jerry Alatalo

ravel around the Earth in the new year 2019, put the following assertion to people in various nations and regions, and responses will range from total confusion and befuddlement to full awareness and agreement. The assertion is that humanity faces in 2019 the simple yet immeasurably important choice of either embracing the effort to uncover the truth of 9/11 or experiencing the horror of World War III.

The choice of working to get at the brutal truth of what transpired on September 11, 2001, commonly spoken of as the “day that changed everything”, has emerged after the legal team comprising the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry took steps leading to the future implementation of a Special Grand Jury process – to assess evidence of explosives being used to crash New York’s World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 on 9/11.

For millions around the world already firmly convinced that 9/11 was what is increasingly recognized as a “false flag event”, the Lawyers’ Committee’s successful push for the Special Grand Jury represents metaphorically a legal document which has been written with all the necessary provisions and terms thought out and placed correctly, with the only remaining step (the Grand Jury process, presentation of evidence) being the signing of names and dating.

The top concern for many supporters of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry is that World War III becomes initiated before the 9/11 Special Grand Jury have the opportunity to do its immeasurably vital work: exposing the horrific-but-necessary truth that the world on September 11, 2001 witnessed the largest covert military false flag operation of the 21st century – arguably in all of human history.

Imagining the choice humanity faces in 2019 – between 9/11 truth and world war – as a minds-eye viewing of two gigantic dams filled to near-overflow might offer a way of fully appreciating the current sobering reality. Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry might be perceived as the water flowing into the dam of 9/11 truth, historically poised to overflow and destroy the wall of lies which have persisted for more than (17) years.

The other choice humanity faces, the other dam ready to burst, might be perceived as the water flowing into the rising-tension tide world war scenario, represented by those individuals responsible for directing the planning, logistics and carrying out of the massive crimes on 9/11, along with the criminal wars of aggression across (17) years the false flag psychological operation was precisely engineered to facilitate.

From that imagined perspective humanity now must choose which “dam” to destroy. Destroy the Big Lie of 9/11 and the result is destruction of the potential for world war. Observing that negative world events, circumstances and realities on the ground of a military nature have been criminally advocated based on false, devious foundations birthed or created on September 11, the simple truth is that factual science revealing what happened obliterates those false foundations and the co-existent immoral, continuing excuses for prolongation of “endless war”.

Therefore … the successful, continuing efforts of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry is our choice for Top International Story of 2018.

***

Trump, May, Moreno Still Silent On Julian Assange.

by Jerry Alatalo

U.S., U.K., Ecuador leaders ignore U.N. international law judgment regarding Julian Assange

German Parliament members and Julian Assange’s father spoke to reporters after meeting with the long-time illegally detained and silenced publisher in London.

n many discussions over the past (8) months since  Ecuador’s government shut off Julian Assange’s ability to communicate from inside Ecuador’s embassy in London to the outside world via phone, internet, mail or during visitations with family and friends, people have wondered aloud how Julian Assange and WikiLeaks would have reported on important news events.

Had Mr. Assange never been framed for crimes he did not commit, or faced extradition to the United States as part of the plan which included the bogus charges, his need for seeking (and receiving) asylum of (now) over (6) years ago from then-President Rafael Correa of Ecuador would never have arisen, and he and WikiLeaks would have continued reporting on world affairs.

Muhammad Ali explains why he decided to refuse induction into the U.S. Army and oppose the Vietnam War.

One becomes reminded of the great heavyweight champion boxer Muhammad Ali, whose refusal to join the U.S. military during the Vietnam War led to his losing the ability to box professionally for years, personally devastating because he was in his physical prime, at the height of his athletic prowess. Ali’s morality-based stance – highlighted by the famous statement “I don’t have anything against those Vietnamese people” – became vindicated later on after it became clear the Vietnam War was initiated based on the false flag lies surrounding the now-infamous “Gulf of Tonkin” incident, which in fact never occurred. Millions of Vietnamese and near 60,000 U.S. servicemen died unnecessarily in what many describe as America’s worst foreign policy catastrophe ever.

Similar to the experiences of Muhammad Ali, Julian Assange has been unjustly persecuted for his antiwar actions. Ali came from the arena of professional sports, Assange from the arena of publishing, and both paid a very high price. Both men knew that their actions risked certain, serious backlash, personal risk and negative consequences from those pushing war agendas, but with conscious intent both Ali and Assange stood firm against the individuals, groups and/or governments who opposed them.

Muhammad Ali eventually regained his freedom and boxing career, going on to take part in some of the most memorable heavyweight fights in history. He boxed well into his 40’s, long after professional boxers retire from the ring, and suffered debilitating physical damages from the accumulated head punches received in matches conducted after  he passed his physical prime.

Boxing legend Muhammad Ali lit the symbolic torch to begin the 1996 Olympic Summer Games in Atlanta, Georgia.

Ali, – like Assange with his antiwar publishing actions – received both strong public criticism and support for his opposition to the Vietnam War, and eventually, as the years passed after the end of the war in Vietnam, became widely regarded as a hero in the public’s perceptions. Despite having lost much of his former ability to speak due to the head injuries from boxing, Ali’s popularity continued, highlighted by his symbolic lighting of the torch in the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. Muhammad Ali passed away in 2016 at the age of 74.

The fate of Julian Assange remains uncertain and perilous, however the millions around the world who support him and demand his freedom received encouraging news in the past few days. Supporters, many contributing their efforts as volunteers through the growing #Unity4J Movement, are hoping for a snowball effect to grow the level of public outcry globally calling for Assange’s release.

On December 20, two members of the German Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee – Heike Haensel and Sevim Dagdelen of the Die Linke or Left Party – met with illegally imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher/leader Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

At the end of their meeting they held a press conference outside the embassy and released a declaration signed by more than (30) members of European Parliament and the German Bundestag calling on the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May to take steps toward Assange’s “immediate release”, and that he be granted “safe passage to a safe country” as soon as possible.

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) accused Theresa May’s administration of violating international law over an issue of press freedom on December 21st. It is unknown whether Theresa May or anyone in her administration have officially responded to WGAD’s allegations.

To Mr. Trump of the United States, Ms. May of the United Kingdom, and Mr. Moreno of Ecuador:

The ball is now in your court(room). Do the right thing.

Free Julian Assange.

(Thank you to Sputnik at YouTube)

 

9-11 Justice Legal Team Forces Special Grand Jury.

(Via: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website)

U.S. Attorney Takes First Step Toward Prosecuting Explosive Destruction of World Trade Center on 9/11

AE911Truth Staff

November 27, 2018

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is pleased to share the following announcement made by the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry on November 26, 2018:

United States Attorney Agrees to Comply with Federal Law Requiring Submission to Special Grand Jury of Report by Lawyers’ Committee and 9/11 Victim Family Members of Yet-To-Be-Prosecuted 9/11 Related Federal Crimes

The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, a nonprofit public interest organization, announces its receipt of a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in response to the Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10, 2018 Petition and July 30, 2018 Amended Petition demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7). The U.S. Attorney, in his November 7, 2018 letter to the Lawyers’ Committee, stated: “We have received and reviewed The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.’s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions” (emphasis added). (The U.S. Attorney’s letter is available here.)

The U.S. Attorney’s letter does not spell out the steps that will be taken to comply, but 18 U.S.C. § 3332 is clear as to what these steps must be. This law states: “[a]ny such [United States] attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the [Special] grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation.” This law also states that “(a) It shall be the duty of each such [special] grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district.”

This letter from the U.S. Attorney was signed by Michael Ferrara and Ilan Graff, Chiefs, Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit. On November 24, 2018, the Lawyers’ Committee replied, thanking the U.S. Attorney and expressing support for a thorough inquiry into the crimes reported in the Lawyers’ Committee’s petitions.

The Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10th 52-page original Petition was accompanied by 57 exhibits and presented extensive evidence that explosives were used to destroy three WTC buildings. That evidence included independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries; numerous first-hand reports by First Responders of explosions at the WTC on 9/11; expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 prior to the airplane impacts and prior to the building collapses; and expert analysis by architects, engineers, and scientists concluding that the rapid onset symmetrical near-free-fall acceleration collapse of three WTC high rise buildings on 9/11 exhibited the key characteristics of controlled demolition.

The Lawyers’ Committee’s July 30th Amended Petition addresses several additional federal crimes beyond the federal bombing crime addressed in the original Petition. The Lawyers’ Committee concluded in the petitions that explosive and incendiary devices preplaced at the WTC were detonated causing the complete collapse of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 and increasing the tragic loss of life.

Attorney Mick Harrison, Litigation Director, stated: “The failure of our government to diligently investigate this disturbing evidence has contributed to the erosion of trust in our institutions. The Lawyers’ Committee felt it was our duty as public citizens to submit this evidence to the U.S. Attorney for submission to the Special Grand Jury.”

Attorney David Meiswinkle, President of the Lawyers’ Committee’s Board of Directors, stated: “We have offered to assist the U.S. Attorney in the presentation of this evidence to a Special Grand Jury. We have also requested that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth provide us expert support in the hope that our organizations will be invited to make a joint presentation of relevant evidence to the Special Grand Jury.”

Attorney William Jacoby, Lawyers’ Committee Board Member, stated: “We call upon the public and legal community to contact us and support our efforts to contribute to this grand jury process and to monitor and ensure compliance by the Justice Department.”

Executive Director and Actor Ed Asner stated: “The U.S. Attorney’s decision to comply with the Special Grand Jury Statute regarding our petitions is an important step towards greater transparency and accountability regarding the tragic events of 9/11.”