"Neocons Are The Swamp" by Chuck Baldwin

[Theocrat]

Chuck Baldwin makes some excellent observations (as usual) about the reality of Donald Trump's incoming administration. Trump supporters were warned that Trump was not as anti-establishment as the media portrayed him to be, but his supporters refused to listen. Now we're stuck with another status quo President, who is "draining the swamp" and refilling it with more swamp water.

Donald Trump won the White House on the promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C. He rode the wave of outsider all the way inside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But does Donald Trump even understand what the swamp is or who the people are that keep filling the swamp? By many of his presidential picks thus far (already summarized in this column), I am getting the impression that Trump may not understand who these swamp-fillers really are.

The swamp-fillers are NEOCONS. And they are the biggest threat to America and to everyone who lives on this planet regardless of nationality.

The word “neocon” has become a common term in our political lexicon. However, I don’t think most people truly understand its definition. And at this juncture, I am highly suspicious as to whether Donald Trump understands the definition.

Neocons can be Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. Political ideologies and parties mean nothing when it comes to who is a neocon. Many neocons are conservative on domestic social issues. Many are liberal on domestic social issues. When it comes to identifying a neocon, titles are meaningless. Hillary Clinton is as much a neocon as Paul Ryan.

Continue reading here.

[Brian4Liberty]

More:

*Perpetual War

Nothing rings the cash register for globalists like war. War helps to replace recalcitrant national leaders who refuse to give international financiers carte blanche in their countries. War helps to redraw national boundaries that favor the global economy. War brings HUGE profit windfalls to the military-industrial-surveillance complexes that are mostly in bed with high-paying globalists. War causes citizens in free countries to accept more governmental authority (which always includes an international component) over their affairs that would never be the case in peacetime. And war is also the perfect solution to resolve the economic problems of a sinking financial system.

In this regard, religious bigotry and intolerance make it easy for globalists to manipulate the passions of people in favor of war. Pitting Christians against Muslims and Muslims against Christians is the current tactic favored by globalists. And, boy, is it working!

When GW Bush was President, the boogeyman was Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Obama, the boogeyman was Syria. And with Donald Trump’s picks for National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, and Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, John Kelly, it appears the new boogeyman will be Iran. This is all a manipulation of the globalists to keep the flames of war lit in the world’s only superpower: the United States of America.

Peace is the last thing globalists want. War profiteers lose trillions of dollars annually without the war machine generating limitless wealth for the global elite. Therefore, globalists rely on their war hawk toadies like GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Henry Kissinger, the CFR, et al. to keep the war fires HOT. We will soon see whether Trump truly understands this part of the “swamp.” On Tuesday of this week, Trump hosted ultra-globalist Henry Kissinger at Trump Tower. That should send chills up your spine. The sovereignty and independence of the United States (not to mention global peace) has no greater enemy than Henry Kissinger. Does Trump have any idea who he is dealing with? We’ll see.
Just this week in Fayetteville, North Carolina, President-Elect Trump said, “The United States is going to abandon its decades of policies promoting regime change in countries around the world.” He also pledged to “follow a policy of restraining U.S. military force around the world rather than unleashing it.” This policy, if implemented, would be a blatant attack against the globalist-neocon perpetual war doctrine. I doubt that generals Mattis, Flynn, and Kelly will be fans of such a dramatic reversal of this long-entrenched perpetual war doctrine; and for Trump to fulfill this pledge, he will be forced to deal head on with the warmongering neocons from all over Washington, D.C. I hope he is serious about this pledge. Again, we’ll see.
...
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles...The-Swamp.aspx

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/drchuckbaldwin/s...88562583109632

[osan]

Chuck Baldwin makes some excellent observations (as usual) about the reality of Donald Trump's incoming administration. Trump supporters were warned that Trump was not as anti-establishment as the media portrayed him to be, but his supporters refused to listen. Now we're stuck with another status quo President, who is "draining the swamp" and refilling it with more swamp water.

So? Your statement is full of innuendo, and yet is says nothing of substance. "Not as anti-establishment" as what, exactly? Where is that bright line drawn such that on the one side you're cool and on the other you're chud?

Trump may well prove chud in the end, but he's not yet so proven. I suggest that it would behoove one and all to hold your anti-Trump sentiments in some check until such time as at least the man's been sworn-in.

Sheesh.

Then there's this "excellent observation":

By many of [Trump's] presidential picks thus far (already summarized in this column), I am getting the impression that Trump may not understand who these swamp-fillers really are.

The same could have been said of every president since Washington. Whoopdy-friggin' doo.

What this Baldwin fails to take into account is not just the pedigree of the choices, but that of the man who will be directing them. Anyone who thinks we could have today a cabinet full of Ron Pauls, Judge Naps, Osans ( ), and so forth, is not occupying real space. We are in $#@! up to our eyes, the truth of which were it known to the average man, would see civil war break out for the sheer terror it would strike in their hearts. The fixing we need doesn't happen over night. It is materially impossible, especially if you do not want half or more of the population dead by week's end.

What counts FAR more than the perceived timbre of the men Trump chooses, is how he manages them. It is his duty as president to direct those people in terms of the policies they are to make manifest. If they fail to make good, it is Trump's duty to fire them. Now, unless the S&M has been THAT extensive, Trump has shown himself not to give a rat's patootie what others think when the time comes for him to be the boss. That is the mark of a proper executive, in case anyone is not aware of it. I have witnessed this countless times and I have lived the role myself in the course of my professional life.

Unless we have been completely fooled, I am inclined to think that where one of his picks fails to live up to his duties as defined by Trump himself, Donald will not be afraid of the perception of being a failure if he fires the failed cabinet minister. That, of course, speaks well to the man's character as an executive and leader. Compare with what we have seen with Obama, who has proven himself a cowering weakling, all afeared of admitting he'd made an error. Think of it: can anyone here post a video showing Obama squarely admitting that he'd pooched in even the least manner? I can think of not even one instance of such an admission.

For whatever his other faults may be, I see Trump as owning his $#@!-ups in full measure, and that is a very good sign. He could still prove a great steaming pile as a president, but this much cannot be taken from him. On the outside chance he proves some epsilon better than the vaporous heap, I would feel I have some cause for at least a very limited optimism.

So my suggestion is to keep it in your pants at least until we see how his policies pan out in points of material reality.

Look at his appointment of Liveris of Dow. He is the man who destroyed Union Carbide, a company much superior to Dow in purely technical terms. Liveris came in and utterly dismantled anything and everything perceived as competitive with the Dow status quo of chemical manufacturing and operations. He destroyed countless careers including that of a dear friend of mine who was the company-wide director of IT, research computing, and process control for Carbide and, IMO, a genius. Needless to say, he was less than happy to hear of Liveris' appointment... at first. But he realized that it is possible that with the right direction, Liveris may be precisely the sort of personality that is needed to get done that which needs getting done.

Think on that awhile: we are in the poo up to our eyeballs. Getting the damage under control will take no mean skill. What is needed is a very pragmatic approach, hopefully tempered with the good sense that right principles provide. This implies using the best tools for the missions at hand, which means hiring people who know how to get things done. Liveris is one of those people and as my friend pointed out, given a different brand of direction, may prove very effective in bringing forth the repairs needed in order to bring America back toward greater freedom. At Dow he was driven by board/shareholder goals and objectives. The role for which he has been chosen now is very different in its basic makeup. Perhaps the old dog may have some new tricks up his sleeve? Only time will tell.

So chill out. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen. Getting your undies in a knot over things beyond your control makes no sense. If Trump is chud, you will have a lifetime of opportunities to rub the world's nose in the fact that you were right and we were wrong. Until then...

Merry Christmas, everyone.

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, Theo, if everyone here would have just done what Gary Johnson and Bill Weld told us to do and voted for Hillary. We would be on the path to liberty.

[H. E. Panqui]

osan writes: "Trump may well prove chud in the end, but he's not yet so proven. I suggest that it would behoove one and all to hold your anti-Trump sentiments in some check until such time as at least the man's been sworn-in."



(...but then, wouldn't it behoove one and all pro-trump cheerleaders to keep their mindless republicrat cheerleading in check too?...)

[but then, that wouldn't be any fun, would it?]

....btw osan, one wonders what YOU would've thought had some republicrat written the following republicrap: "So chill out. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen. Getting your undies in a knot over things beyond your control makes no sense. If [hillary clinton] is chud, you will have a lifetime of opportunities to rub the world's nose in the fact that you were right and we were wrong"..

[hint: methinks me knows what you would've thought]

[osan]

More:

Nothing rings the cash register for globalists like war. War helps to replace recalcitrant national leaders who refuse to give international financiers carte blanche in their countries. War helps to redraw national boundaries that favor the global economy. War brings HUGE profit windfalls to the military-industrial-surveillance complexes that are mostly in bed with high-paying globalists. War causes citizens in free countries to accept more governmental authority (which always includes an international component) over their affairs that would never be the case in peacetime. And war is also the perfect solution to resolve the economic problems of a sinking financial system.

In this regard, religious bigotry and intolerance make it easy for globalists to manipulate the passions of people in favor of war. Pitting Christians against Muslims and Muslims against Christians is the current tactic favored by globalists. And, boy, is it working!

When GW Bush was President, the boogeyman was Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Obama, the boogeyman was Syria.

So far, so good.

And with Donald Trump’s picks for National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, and Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, John Kelly, it appears the new boogeyman will be Iran.

The operative term. And yet, the sentence conveys innuendo of a far stronger odor, as if some sarcastic barb lay therein, thinly veiled.

This is all a manipulation of the globalists to keep the flames of war lit in the world’s only superpower: the United States of America.

Wait a wait... is he telling us that Trump is a globalist elite? That is the clear implication of the sentence's semantics.

It would appear the author commits the sin common to so many others of drawing premature inferences. This could all prove out as written. But what if it doesn't? The Baldwin may look less credible thereafter. At this stage, the alarms he seems to want to raise are valid only as things of which to be aware and wary. It is not yet time to wet ourselves in panic. That comes later... maybe.

Peace is the last thing globalists want. War profiteers lose trillions of dollars annually without the war machine generating limitless wealth for the global elite. Therefore, globalists rely on their war hawk toadies like GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Henry Kissinger, the CFR, et al. to keep the war fires HOT.

All valid.

We will soon see whether Trump truly understands this part of the “swamp.”

Indeed.

On Tuesday of this week, Trump hosted ultra-globalist Henry Kissinger at Trump Tower. That should send chills up your spine.

No, it should put you on alert. Do we know what was discussed? I do not, but if you do please share.

The sovereignty and independence of the United States (not to mention global peace) has no greater enemy than Henry Kissinger. Does Trump have any idea who he is dealing with? We’ll see.

You see, this is the sort of nonsense that destroys credibility of men like this in the eyes of men who use their brains as more than mere hat racks. There is a subtext of hand-wringing that is either intended to elicit a very specific emotional response, or accomplishes that end through sheer editorial ineptitude. Either way the credibility of the Baldwin comes under some pall. I find this approach smacking of the disingenuous in that it attempts to appear wisely circumspect with a neutrality about it when in reality it is all about stirring the pot.

Just this week in Fayetteville, North Carolina, President-Elect Trump said, “The United States is going to abandon its decades of policies promoting regime change in countries around the world.” He also pledged to “follow a policy of restraining U.S. military force around the world rather than unleashing it.” This policy, if implemented, would be a blatant attack against the globalist-neocon perpetual war doctrine. I doubt that generals Mattis, Flynn, and Kelly will be fans of such a dramatic reversal of this long-entrenched perpetual war doctrine;

Doubt? Based on what, the "Mad Dog" monniker? Jesus tapdancing across the Seven Seas... he cannot be serious. Once again, this is a pure bait to an emotional response.

FAIL^FAIL

and for Trump to fulfill this pledge, he will be forced to deal head on with the warmongering neocons from all over Washington, D.C. I hope he is serious about this pledge. Again, we’ll see.

More of the same thinly-disguised attempts at editorializing along a non-explicit line of emotional appeal.

Cannot give this any serious credit, I am sorry.

Note also how he takes very valid points and pulls them together in ways that cannot be reasonably assessed as either honest or adept. I don't know the man so I cannot say which it may be.

[osan]

osan writes: "Trump may well prove chud in the end, but he's not yet so proven. I suggest that it would behoove one and all to hold your anti-Trump sentiments in some check until such time as at least the man's been sworn-in."



(...but then, wouldn't it behoove one and all pro-trump cheerleaders to keep their mindless republicrat cheerleading in check too?...)

Yes.

....btw osan, one wonders what YOU would've thought had some republicrat written the following republicrap: "So chill out. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen. Getting your undies in a knot over things beyond your control makes no sense. If [hillary clinton] is chud, you will have a lifetime of opportunities to rub the world's nose in the fact that you were right and we were wrong"..

Trump and Clinton are apples and rotting flesh. Trump has no record as a politician. Clinton has a lifetime record as rotting flesh. We have no basis for assessing Trump as a politician, whereas we have every basis for doing so with rotting flesh.

[hint: methinks me knows what you would've thought]

Was it what I wrote, above?

[osan]

Neocons are the swamp...

Are the progressives not equally swamp? Perhaps they are something worse?

Execute every last stinking neocon and the world remains yet under the boots of tyrants.

[LibertyEagle]

There are all kinds of one-worlder traitors besides the neocons and on both sides of the aisle.

[enhanced_deficit]

No wonder neocons preferred SWC Hillary over Trump:


Trump Says Hillary Has ‘Killed Hundreds of Thousands of People’

December 13th, 2015


Donald Trump went on the attack against both Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton this morning, using remarkably hyperbolic language about both of them.
..
Trump also went on the attack against Clinton, saying she lacks strength and stamina and “everything she does is theatrical.” (Soak in the irony on that one.) He went off on her record at the State Department and said, “She’s killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-cal...nds-of-people/

[jmdrake]

Yeah, Theo, if everyone here would have just done what Gary Johnson and Bill Weld told us to do and voted for Hillary. We would be on the path to liberty.

Please quote where Gary Johnson and Bill Weld said to vote for Hillary. Also you owe Ted Cruz an apology for buying into the National Inquirer "serial adulterer" bullshyt and pretending that Donald "grab em by the pussy" Trump was some kind of Davidic "repentant" figure.

[Theocrat]

So? Your statement is full of innuendo, and yet is says nothing of substance. "Not as anti-establishment" as what, exactly? Where is that bright line drawn such that on the one side you're cool and on the other you're chud?

Trump may well prove chud in the end, but he's not yet so proven. I suggest that it would behoove one and all to hold your anti-Trump sentiments in some check until such time as at least the man's been sworn-in.

Sheesh.

Donald Trump is not anti-establishment at all, in my view. I was just making the point that Trump's persona was being portrayed during the primaries and general election as someone who was not cozy with establishment, neoconservative types within the Republican Party, especially because of his rhetoric on foreign policy. Hell, that's why even Lew Rockwell & Co. was cheerleading for Trump. So Trump was being portrayed as the candidate who was going to be "outside the Beltway."

However, as we've seen from all of his cabinet picks, Trump is just as cozy with the establishment within his party as Hillary was with those inside of hers. If you can't see right now how Trump is going to go "full retard" when he is officially sworn in, then you have been ignoring all of the signs that indicate that it will take place. But that's what happens when you vote for the lesser of two evils.

But I don't need to wait until Trump is sworn in before I know whether or not he is going to be a status quo President. His whole campaign and, now, his cabinet choices are evidence enough, and I don't need to mention how many times Trump has flip-flopped and contradicted himself on issues:

[Theocrat]

Yeah, Theo, if everyone here would have just done what Gary Johnson and Bill Weld told us to do and voted for Hillary. We would be on the path to liberty.

Well, all 3 of the "major" candidates were garbage, anyway. Besides, we have local, county, state, Congressional, and Senatorial elections that we need to be focused on, too. The Presidency is not the only race we need to be worried about every 4 years.

[osan]

Donald Trump is not anti-establishment at all, in my view.

Well enough, so far as you went, but you really didn't say too much.

I was just making the point that Trump's persona was being portrayed during the primaries and general election as someone who was not cozy with establishment,

But there are many gradations, levels, or forms of "cozy". It's not a single thing. He rubs elbows with establishment politicians all the time, for some given definition of "establishment". You would to the same, were you in his position, holding his concerns, and sharing perhaps some of his goals and objectives.

Like it or not, the world is what it is and if one comes to the level of market influence as has Trump, you have to deal with the world as it is and not as you want it to be.

Once again, assuming the S&M is not pervasive beyond a certain degree where Trump is concerned, I find is plausible that Trump will be working to restore America to HIS vision of "greatness". He may fail to bring it to OUR standards, but that doesn't worry me too much at this point. It still stands to be a world better than anything Clinton would have done, on her knees paying slurping homage to the Obama legacy.

I am no longer seeking that revolution. Indeed, I have to reject it because were it to come, the nation would fall into chaos, and likely ruin because the American people are no longer prepared for proper freedom. Therefore, if 100 million dead is to be avoided, a slow return to sanity from our current dance on insanity's razor-edge is what we need. It is a sad thing to have to acknowledge, but there you are. Personally, I don't care if 100 million Americans die, so long as it's the right ones. Unfortunately, we have no control over how that process pans out in this respect. Furthermore, there is no sufficiently reasonable guarantee that those for whom I care would not be among the departed. I must therefore hope that we take the slower, more stable path back from the brink; the path that stands the better chance of longer-term success. Once the violence-cat is let out of the bag, people will find it difficult to stuff back in, if it is even possible to do so. And the next time tensions rise to these levels, it will be all the more easy to let it out just "one more time".

neoconservative types within the Republican Party, especially because of his rhetoric on foreign policy. Hell, that's why even Lew Rockwell & Co. was cheerleading for Trump. So Trump was being portrayed as the candidate who was going to be "outside the Beltway."

Trump IS outside the Beltway, if I take your meaning correctly. Once again, being "inside the Beltway" can have many meanings of varying gradation. These modes of expression are very tricky, meaning that in order to say anything of substance, one must become very specific. Otherwise, all manner of misunderstanding is likely to occur. We see this all the time. It is a wonder people do not take far greater care in how they string words together, particularly given the lengths and depths of deceit to which we have all been treated.

However, as we've seen from all of his cabinet picks, Trump is just as cozy with the establishment within his party as Hillary was with those inside of hers.

I must object. I've spent most of my professional life swimming with sharks like Trump, myself being something of an aquatic predator myself. One thing you will find as a common characteristic of all effective executives is a sharp sense of practicality. Getting things done is what these people are mostly about, and knowing how to choose those under them to get those things done is also a common thread they tend to share.

The past record of a given cabinet candidate is utterly irrelevant to their assignment as a minister. Read that last sentence over and over until you believe it. I have built and managed large teams pursuant to the discharge of my personal responsibilities for hundreds of millions of my employer's dollars. Joey Hacker may be a complete dick with a checkered-at-best past, but if he is the best person to get done what I need done, he gets his shot at it. The only relevance of his "record" is that it serves as a basis to guide me in the management of Joey. The record does not in any way whatsoever invalidate his suitability for the position, all else equal of course.

Liveris of Dow: a corporate killer who destroyed the career of one of my best friends, may nonetheless be precisely the man to do the job for which Trump has chosen him. Mattis as SecDef? I can readily see it. As I have mentioned in other posts, it is up to Trump to manage these people properly, handing them the policies he wishes to be made manifest. It is up to Trump to ensure they make those policies real in practice and it is his DUTY to fire them when they fail.

The man is not yet sworn-in and people are already busily armchair-quarterbacking his choices. FAIL. I have set my expectations for Trump appropriately low, but I retain hope and the desire to be proven wrong in how I've set my sights.

If you can't see right now how Trump is going to go "full retard" when he is officially sworn in, then you have been ignoring all of the signs that indicate that it will take place

I see. So just because I am unwilling to go off half-cocked with conclusions about Trump, you conclude I have not been paying attention? So sorry, but you are as wrong as it gets on that point. I am fully aware of how he may fail and more than half-expecting him to do so. But Trump is fact and wringing my hands over what he may do is complete foolishness. There will be plenty of time to wail and gnash my teeth later on, in the event he proves just another low-rent tyrant. Until then, the man gets my provisional and askance thin-slice trust.

But that's what happens when you vote for the lesser of two evils.

D00d, this is über-FAIL. Firstly, you assume he is evil. That is yet to be proven. Secondly, just because his vision of "great" America does not align with yours or perhaps even mine, it makes no hay whatsoever to label him as evil. That is VERY dangerous thinking; it is the worst possible habit into which to settle yourself. I strongly recommend you drop that yesterday. Your choice, of course.

Thirdly, what you state is a gross non sequitur. Assuming two evils, voting for the lesser does not perforce imply that one loses. In some cases, yes; in others, no; and then there are the rest of the cases that fall between these extremes. You're displaying too much black and white thinking in a world comprised mostly of gradations of not-quite-clear.

But I don't need to wait until Trump is sworn in before I know whether or not he is going to be a status quo President. His whole campaign and, now, his cabinet choices are evidence enough, and I don't need to mention how many times Trump has flip-flopped and contradicted himself on issues:

Then your standards of proof are very low. That fact will stand even if everything you claim here proves out. The evidence as it stands at this time serves properly only as marks of notice of things for which we should have our eyes peeled. Drawing conclusions as you have is invalid. As the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day, once if displaying military time.

I think there is so much butt-hurt in America, which is understandable given the treatments to which we have all been subjected, that people no longer dare believe that anything could be better. $#@! that noise. I have, as a matter of sheer will, decided to suspend my churn until such time as I am given clear indication that I am being taken for yet another ride. This doesn't mean I'm getting ready to suck Donald's tuna, but only that I am not going to paralyze myself or shut myself off to potential improvement just because I suspect another BOHICA event is nigh. If it is coming, it's coming and there is nothing to be done about it, short of leaving for Australia or getting my rifle.

Not saying you should be in love; just show a little self-control and suspend your disbelief on the assumption that BOHICA is in the works, yet hoping for some crumb of "better". That takes some guts and audacity. Have them both. Why not have them?

Merry Christmas.

[H. E. Panqui]

osan apologizes: Trump and Clinton are apples and rotting flesh. Trump has no record as a politician.



...i know, i know, trump is the apple of your eye...puppy love...[channeling john lennon: 'all osan's saaaaying, is give trump a chance..']

...i don't know about you, but when i judge politicians/leaders i pay keen attention to the quality of their ideas...granted, stinking hillary clinton's ideas really suck...but your stinking republican trump's ideas suck too!..really..

...anyone supporting either of these republicrat puppets is gd foolish imo....

[osan]

osan apologizes: Trump and Clinton are apples and rotting flesh. Trump has no record as a politician.



...i know, i know, trump is the apple of your eye...puppy love...[channeling john lennon: 'all osan's saaaaying, is give trump a chance..']

...i don't know about you, but when i judge politicians/leaders i pay keen attention to the quality of their ideas...granted, stinking hillary clinton's ideas really suck...but your stinking republican trump's ideas suck too!..really..

...anyone supporting either of these republicrat puppets is gd foolish imo....

MY Republican?

I'm not a Republican.

Puppy love? You have not been paying proper attention to what I have written.

Come now, if you have nothing better than this, then why not just concede that my position is reasonable? And as for channeling John Lennon - no. I despised the man. He was smart, but had a smarmy quality that just made my skin crawl. I'd as soon channel Mao, and it'll be a cold day in hell before that happens.

Or to put it to you in terms of a question: what is your reasoned argument against taking a wait-see position with Trump, once again reminding you that I am not advocating any premature assessment? IMO he has enough unknown in him to justify this. Clinton does not. Even Obama didn't, meager as his "record" was as a senator, but he made clear enough his truer positions during his short and fraudulent tenure.

[Brian4Liberty]

More:

When GW Bush was President, the boogeyman was Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Obama, the boogeyman was Syria. And with Donald Trump’s picks for National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, and Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, John Kelly, it appears the new boogeyman will be Iran. This is all a manipulation of the globalists to keep the flames of war lit in the world’s only superpower: the United States of America.

Chuck Baldwin warned us...