Regime Change in North Korea or a Communist Apocalypse?

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

Our objective should be regime change in North Korea, China, and Russia. These are our main enemies. Let’s start with North Korea.

If President Trump accepts another “deal” with the North Korean regime, he will have made a serious and fatal error. Deterrence hasn’t worked. Right now we can take out the North Korean land-based nuclear threat. If we wait, they will have submarine-based nuclear weapons. And there’s no way to take them out in advance.

The U.N. Security Council unanimously imposed new sanctions on North Korea on August  5. So what? It’s just one in another series of ineffective resolutions on North Korea. The U.N. is a communist front.

Secretary of State Tillerson is telling North Koreans, “we are not your enemy.” Of course they are. This is a brainwashed nation whose communist leaders must be obliterated. “We do not seek a regime change,” Tillerson says. “We do not seek the collapse of the regime.”

The Communists engineered regime change in South Vietnam, and 58,000 Americans died in vain.

They can seek regime change in non-communist countries, but we can’t seek regime change in communist countries? This is a recipe for communist domination of the world.

We have to be prepared to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea. Yes, millions may die on the Korean peninsula. But would you rather wait until North Korean nuclear weapons hit the United States and tens of millions of Americans die?

North Korean nukes could strike much of the U.S. Thanks to Comrade Obama. And thanks, too, to his comrades in Russia and China. North Korea’s communist sponsors won’t hold North Korea back from such a strike on the U.S. mainland. They will watch and smile as America is destroyed in a communist apocalypse.

Read the North Korean-Russian treaty here. There is also a Chinese-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty that was signed on July 11, 1961

Did you know there was a North Korean-South Korean treaty on the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula? Under this Joint Declaration, “the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Republic of Korea (ROK) agree not to test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy, or use nuclear weapons; to use nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes; and not to possess facilities for nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment.”

How did that work out?

Our policy has to be regime change – and as soon as possible.

If we don’t act now, Iran gets the message that they can develop nuclear weapons and no one will stop them. A scientific-cooperation pact between North Korea and Iran was reached in 2012 and advanced the nuclear and missile programs of both countries.

It’s reported Trump is meeting with his intelligence “experts.” Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has listed several of the intelligence failures regarding North Korea:

…the failures included judgments that cast doubt about whether North Korea’s nuclear program posed an immediate threat, whether North Korea could produce a militarily useful nuclear bomb, whether North Korea was capable of conducting an underground nuclear test and whether Pyongyang was bluffing by claiming it could carry one out.

How many “mistakes” will be made before we come to the conclusion that we are being deliberately deceived by the enemies within and set up for the kill?

President Trump says, “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with the fire and the fury like the world has never seen.”

Start by cleaning out the traitors in the intelligence community who have consistently made these “mistakes.” Then, take out the North Korean regime. There is no alternative.

*Cliff Kincaid is President of America’s Survival, Inc. and the editor of the new book, Comrade Obama Unmasked.


The Revealing Effort To Discredit The #FireMcMaster Movement

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

The incredibly strong and swift reaction to the viral #FireMcMaster hashtag is one certain indicator that conservatives were right to zero in on a very real and potential danger in the White House.

Screenshot at the Alliance for Securing Democracy website for Hamilton68

Why are Conservatives worried about Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster?

To get you up to speed on McMaster’s dirty deeds (skip to “The Progressive Establishment Blows a Gasket” below if you do not need a refresher):

President Trump’s Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, who succeeded retired United States Army Lieutenant Michael Flynn, blocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali from speaking to the National Security Council, fought to keep former UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s security clearance, and has been actively purging pro-Israel, anti-Iran Deal security professionals as reported at TrevorLoudon.com. The firing of Rich Higgins, Director for Strategic Planning for the White House National Security Council was the last straw for many, prompting respected conservatives such as Lee Stranahan, Frank Gaffney, Paul Nehlen, and Jamie Glazov (among many others) to voice their concerns publicly.

Rich Higgins had been pushing for the declassification of Presidential Study Directive 11.

The Official White House National Security Council Website as of August 9 2017.

Evidently, Susan Rice felt so comfortable with her relationship with Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster that she publicly advised him to “eliminate” Steve Bannon’s security advisory panel known as the “Strategic Initiatives Group.”

Not surprisingly, Bannon’s effort was squelched and the Strategic Initiatives Group is no longer.

Susan Rice got her way.

The Progressive Establishment Blows a Gasket

The establishment and the progressive media quickly sought to discredit the growing conservative anger over McMaster’s “purge,” as the New York Times put it on August 2.

A self-described “analysis” by the Digital Forensic Research Lab at Medium titled “#FireMcMaster, explained: How alt-right media and a handful of Twitter bots tried to get the United States National Security Advisor fired” attempts to make the case that drooling alt-righters blindly called for the firing of Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster because Infowars told them to, despite the fact that the New York Times, Vox, and The Atlantic, for example, all reported on McMaster’s purging on August 2.

Regardless, the Digital Forensic Research Lab breathlessly reports:

“On August 3, a handful of Twitter accounts launched a media campaign under the hashtag #FireMcMaster….The anti-McMaster campaign was initiated by large, alt-right media platforms — primarily Infowars and Breitbart, as well as alt-right Twitter activists including Paul Joseph Watson and Jack Posobiec, both of whom are associated with Prison Planet, another website operated by Alex Jones.”

The Digital Forensic Research Lab, of course, is not as bad as the New York Times, who went even further – claiming that “Russian interference” contributed to the rise of the #FireMcMaster hashtag.


Peter Baker of the New York Times writes:

“The #FireMcMaster hashtag was tweeted more than 50,000 times since Wednesday. Echoing the drumbeat were social media organs tied to the Russian government. According to the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a bipartisan group created to focus attention on Russian interference in the West, the top hashtag among 600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence operations at one point on Thursday was #FireMcMaster.”


But who are these “600 Twitter accounts”? What is the methodology used to determine that these specific Twitter accounts are “linked to Russian influence operations”? Why is it that the Alliance for Securing Democracy does not list these accounts?

The Russian propaganda exposer known as the “Hamilton 68 Dashboard” was released on August 2. It needs to be pointed out that Alliance for Securing Democracy fellow J.M. Berger, one of the individuals who developed the elusive tool used to harvest these “600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence operations” also developed a tool to expose “white nationalism” in 2013.

Note the disclaimer on Hamilton 68 at the Alliance for Securing Democracy website:

NOTE: This dashboard does not assert that websites and links appearing in monitoring are colluding with Russia to influence audiences. The Russia influence network promotes these websites and links because these stories suit Russia’s narratives and resulting influence objectives.

This methodology is about as vigorous as that used to produce Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ graph or the Southern Poverty Law Center’s laughable claim that hate crimes have increased since President Trump was elected.

J.M. is not a fan of President Trump, but he can at least clarify his methodology, right?


This same NYT article was tweeted out by Bill Kristol, a rabid anti-Trump partisan and Editor of the Weekly Standard.

Bill Kristol failed to mention that he sits on the board for the Alliance for Securing Democracy:

Advisory Board members Bill Kristol & Mike Morell (Screenshot from Securing Democracy Website)

Other Alliance for Securing Democracy Advisory Board members include three individuals who served on the Obama Administration, and two who worked for Hillary Clinton.

Bill Kristol forgot to mention his role at the Alliance for Securing Democracy when he tweeted about this “interesting and important” research.

Bill Kristol has been a fan of McMaster for quite awhile:

Kristol continued:

Is anyone who dares to question the motives of McMaster a slack jawed Russian propagandist? Indulge the author for answering that question with a question: Is every pussy-hat-wearing partisan who went to the Women’s March in Washington, D.C. a communist since the Women’s March was sponsored by Communist Party, USA?

Of course not.

Who Supports H.R. McMaster?

Anyone who remotely cares about national security should want to fire Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster based on his actions, as well as for who is propping him up.

Before you go….

Here is a must-read excerpt about McMaster by that Daniel Horowitz of the Conservative Review:

McMaster has fired all of the pro-Israel staff from the NSC: from Ezra Cohen-Watnik, (senior intelligence adviser) and Derek Harvey (the NSC’s Middle East adviser) to Rich Higgins (the director of strategic planning). He has brought in Obama’s people for the most important Middle East roles, including Kris Bauman, a Hamas apologists, as the lead advisor on “Palestine,” as he so proudly calls it.

He even worked hard to bring on Linda Weissgold, the woman who drafted the original Benghazi talking points, which fabricated the narrative about the Islam video spawning a spontaneous protest. Plus, Dina Habib-Powell has taken over the deputy role from K.T. McFarland. As Daniel Greenfield reminds us, this is a woman with an affinity for Muslim Brotherhood organizations who once bragged about the levels of immigration from the Middle East.

This is not just a Bush-style Republican opposed by the hardcore grassroots conservatives. McMaster is the “full Obama.” He is the lowest common denominator of the worst elements of the neo-cons and the Obama acolytes. He is obsessive about intervening in every Islamic civil war with no positive outcome or strategic interest for America, but at the same time he is pro-PLO and passionately supportive of the Iran deal.

Even more insidious, the Obama holdovers McMaster is retaining are suspected as the source of many leaks. Worse, he is now continuing to offer Susan Rice access to sensitive national security material while boxing out Trump loyalists!

As Jed Babbin reported in the American Spectator, four staffers who reported directly to Ben Rhodes have been protected by McMaster: Abigail Grace (Special Assistant), Fernando Cutz (NSC Director for South America), Andrea Hall (NSC Senior Director for WMD, Terrorism & Threat Reduction), and Merry Lin (‎Director for Global and Asia Economics).

The personnel problems explain why McMaster has been such an apologist for the Iran deal and has covered up Iran’s refusal to allow in weapons inspectors to critical sites. McMaster is looking at this crazily backwards: He is obsessed with intervening in Syria to take out Assad but is weak on the problem of Iran, which foments and causes the problems in Syria. McMaster has refused to publicize the 15 side agreements Obama made with Iran.

A final thought:


Nervousness Is Rising

By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities

North Korea dominated the headlines yesterday. Equity markets were generally lower, but not by any significance. Treasuries advanced, but also not by any significance. The question that begets asking, are the markets complacent about escalating tensions believing the statements are only toothless rhetorical words?

The current answer is yes, but I will write nervousness is rising. Will this rising nervousness transcend into selling? To write the incredibly obvious, the potential outcomes of any military action is infinite.

Commenting about the oil markets, for the first time since 2014, spot prices are higher than future prices which suggests greater current demand than supplies. Inventories declined by 6.45 million barrels, considerably greater than the 2.2 million expected. Inventories levels are the lowest since October and are now only 23% higher than the five-year average. At the current six-week rate, in seven weeks, inventories will be at their average levels.

Gasoline inventories, however, surged even as gas demand is at the greatest level since January 2008. Oil prices were originally mixed on the conflicting data, but ultimately ended about 0.8% higher. Can it be suggested that next week’s crude data will be greater than expected and gasoline inventories lower, the inverse of this week? At a casual glance it appears inventories swings such as this appear to be the pattern.

What will happen today? Will there be any reaction to the PPI and initial jobless claims?

Last night the foreign markets were down. London was down 1.12%, Paris was down 0.21% and Frankfurt was down 0.57%. China was down 0.42%, Japan was down 0.05% and Hang Sang was down 1.13%.

The Dow should open moderately lower as North Korean tensions rise. Will the rhetorical words morph into action? Is North Korea taking the extreme polarization in American politics as a sign of weakness or lack of resolution?

For what it is worth department, during the second presidential debate, then candidate Trump was the first candidate that pledged that he would not use nuclear weapons first. The US has never made such a statement, leaving our adversaries guessing as whether or not the US would act — the ultimate form of brinkmanship. Little has been written about Trump’s response as it does not fit the prevailing narrative.

What will happen today?

The 10-year is unchanged at 2.24%.


Judge Rules to Re-Open Hillary Benghazi Email Case

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code


The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:

  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
  • The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
  • None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
  • The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part II:

  • Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
  • The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
  • Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
  • According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
  • On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
  • After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
  • Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
  • The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
  • A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]

Read the full report here as published by the Select Committee on Benghazi.

Judge orders new searches for Clinton Benghazi emails

Politico: Nine months after the presidential election was decided, a federal judge is ordering the State Department to try again to find emails Hillary Clinton wrote about the Benghazi attack.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that the State Department had not done enough to try to track down messages Clinton may have sent about the assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound on Sept. 11, 2012 — an attack that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

In response to Freedom of Information Act requests, State searched the roughly 30,000 messages Clinton turned over to her former agency at its request in December 2014 after officials searching for Benghazi-related records realized she had used a personal email account during her four-year tenure as secretary.

State later searched tens of thousands of emails handed over to the agency by three former top aides to Clinton: Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan. Finally, State searched a collection of emails the FBI assembled when it was investigating Clinton’s use of the private account and server.

In all, State found 348 Benghazi-related messages or documents that were sent to or from Clinton in a period of nearly five months after the attack.

However, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch argued that the search wasn’t good enough because State never tried to search its own systems for relevant messages in the official email accounts of Clinton’s top aides.

In a 10-page ruling issued Tuesday, Mehta — an Obama appointee — agreed.

“To date, State has searched only data compilations originating from outside sources — Secretary Clinton, her former aides, and the FBI. … It has not, however, searched 8 the one records system over which it has always had control and that is almost certain to contain some responsive records: the state.gov e-mail server,” Mehta wrote.

“If Secretary Clinton sent an e-mail about Benghazi to Abedin, Mills, or Sullivan at his or her state.gov e-mail address, or if one of them sent an e-mail to Secretary Clinton using his or her state.gov account, then State’s server presumably would have captured and stored such an e-mail. Therefore, State has an obligation to search its own server for responsive records.”

Justice Department lawyers representing State argued that making them search other employees’ accounts for Clinton’s emails would set a bad precedent that would belabor other FOIA searches.

But Mehta said the circumstances surrounding Clinton’s email represented “a specific fact pattern unlikely to arise in the future.”

A central premise of Mehta’s ruling is that the State Department’s servers archived emails from Clinton’s top aides. However, it’s not clear that happened regularly or reliably.

State Department officials have said there was no routine, automated archiving of official email during Clinton’s tenure. Some officials did copy their mailboxes from time to time and put archived message folders on desktop computers or servers, so State may still have some messages from the aides, but the FBI may already have acquired some of those messages during its inquiry.

A State Department spokesperson declined to comment on the judge’s decision. A Justice Department spokesman said: “We are reviewing the judge’s opinion and order.”