Why Is Trump Helping Obama’s Islamists in Syria?

By Julio Severo

U.S. President Donald Trump took the world by surprise when he ordered the U.S. military to launch a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase Thursday in reaction to a deadly chemical attack, allegedly by the Syrian government, on Islamic rebels formerly supported by Obama and now by Trump.

Dozens of rebels were killed, and at least 10 children. Republican neocons led by Senator John McCain used the attack to push Trump to attack the Syrian government. Hillary Clinton called for bombing of Assad’s airfields hours before Trump’s airstrike. 

The major problem that Trump faces in foreign policy is neocons, and he clearly identified it before his election. But now he does not recognize this problem anymore.

Yet, the reason for Trump’s attack on Syria has been disputed.

Former senator Ron Paul said:

“[I]t doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gasses. I think there is a zero chance he would have done, you know, this deliberately.”

Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily (WND) chief, said:

“I strongly disagree with President Trump’s decision to attack Syria… There are two warring parties in Syria – the Syrian government, which is attempting to repulse an invasion and partial occupation of Syrian territory, and ISIS, a terrorist plague on the entire world, not just Assad’s regime… Both of those parties have been accused of deploying sarin weapons against civilians, though I have yet to see any proof that Assad ever did… ISIS is the primary opposition to Assad.”

According to Infowars:

“The White Helmets, a al-Qaeda affiliated group funded by George Soros and the British government, reportedly staged the sarin attack on civilians in the Syrian city of Khan Shaykhun to lay blame on the Syrian government.”

The Syrian government has been in a deadly war against two enemies: ISIS and Islamic rebels supported formerly by Obama and now by Trump. In 2015 Obama gave to these rebels $500 million for “training.” A multimillion dollar investment against a government fighting ISIS.

To fight only against ISIS is a huge challenge. How to fight at the same time against two enemies facilitated or trained by the U.S.? Even Trump recognized last year that ISIS was founded by Obama. But he never attacked ISIS as he is attacking Syria. By attacking Syria, he is automatically helping ISIS.

Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Paul Ryan and leftists have praised Trump’s attack on Syria. Incidentally, all of them were or are in George Soros’s payroll.

But praises are not coming from conservatives.

Michael Savage, a powerful anti-neocon writer, had called Trump the “Winston Churchill of our time” in July 2015. But now, on his Thursday radio show, Savage complained, “The generals have gotten to him and turned him from peace with Russia. And the people standing in the way of war, like Steve Bannon, are being shown the door. This beating of the war drums with Russia has to stop.”

Alex Jones, of Infowars, said in February that he was “ready to die for Trump.” Now that Trump launched airstrikes against Syria, Jones said on a Friday livestream, “Trump is really disintegrating in my eyes on many levels.”

Ann Coulter, U.S. conservative author and political commentator who had been an ardent Trump supporter and wrote a book titled “In Trump We Trust” last year, has used social media to criticize the Trump’s decision. “Those who wanted us meddling in the Middle East voted for other candidates,” she wrote on Twitter in the early hours of Friday morning, adding:

“Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV.”

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 7, 2017

“Christians who live in Syria are terrified of what will happen if Assad is gone.”

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 7, 2017

“What follows Assad? What followed Saddam? Gaddafi? 15 yrs, 6k lost heroes 500k massacred Christians $5 Trill--for what?”

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 7, 2017

Coulter and a number of Trump’s well-known supporters have expressed their surprise — and fear — at Trump’s hasty decision, which is totally at odds with his previous stance on interventionism. As a presidential candidate, Trump campaigned against military exploits abroad, often railing against Bush and his war in Iraq. In December, shortly after winning election, he said “we will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn’t be involved with.”

When Obama was considering military action against Syria in 2013, Trump strongly urged him not to do it.

In one September 5, 2013 all-caps criticism, Trump tweeted, “AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!”

“Don’t attack Syria – an attack that will bring nothing but trouble for the U.S. Focus on making our country strong and great again!” Trump tweeted four days later.

During the presidential campaign, Trump also bashed Hillary Clinton for her disastrous foreign policy, tweeting, “Crooked Hillary Clinton’s foreign interventions unleashed ISIS in Syria, Iraq and Libya. She is reckless and dangerous!”

What has made Trump change his mind and act as Hillary would have done, by helping ISIS in Syria? What has made him listen to neocons?

After all, what is the point of being pro-life within the United States and not being pro-life for Christians directly threatened by ISIS in Syria?

What is for sure is that the Trump who attacked Syria and helped ISIS is not the same Trump who lambasted neocons last year. Where is the original anti-neocon Trump?

With information from Charisma, Breitbart, DailyWire, DailyMail, Time and WND.

Portuguese version of this article: Por que Trump está ajudando os islamistas de Obama na Síria?

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

What Is Neoconservatism (Neocon)?

Syria Condemns Invasion of U.S. Troops in Its Territory

Trump and Prophecies, and a New Model of National and World Leader

Trump will meet with Putin before his inauguration

By Julio Severo

In an interview Monday with talk-radio host Michael Savage, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that if he wins in November, he might meet with Russian leader Vladimir Putin prior to the inauguration in January.

Michael Savage and Donald Trump

He said, “If I win on Nov. 8, I could see myself meeting with Putin and meeting with Russia prior to the start of the administration.”

Trump noted relations with Russia are widely regarded as worse than at any time since the Cold War.

“You have potentially a really catastrophic situation here. I’ll be honest with you,” he continued.

“They say, ‘Oh well Russia loves Donald Trump and Putin loves Donald Trump,’” Trump told Savage. “They insult him constantly, no wonder he can’t stand Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

In his last debate with Hillary, Trump said, “She talks tough with Russia. She shouldn’t be talking so tough,” Trump said. “Frankly, if we got along with Russia and knocked out ISIS, that would be a good thing, not a bad thing.”

In an interview in August, Trump told Savage the policies of President Obama and Hillary Clinton toward Russia have prompted something “worse than a Cold War.”

“Many of his ideas came from my previous books. Everybody knows that,” Savage told WND in an interview.

Trump has been in conflict with neocons’ interests. It is no wonder that he has been reading Savage books: Savage has been exposing neocons.

See the Ukrainian case. While Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Soros were calling the Ukrainian revolution a people’s revolution, in a WND report Savage said,

“The situation in Ukraine has been painted as a conflict between Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the so-called bad guys, and Ukrainian rebels, the so-called good guys who seek to oust Russia from a position of influence in Ukraine and install a new government that will be responsive to the Ukrainian people. Don’t believe a word of it. The Ukrainian nationalists are fascists. Washington’s original purpose for staging a coup in Ukraine was to move Ukraine away from Russia and bring Ukraine into the European Union. In other words, the neocons and the bought-and-paid-for ‘moderates’ in the Obama administration wanted to wrest control of Ukraine from Putin’s hands and gain economic and energy control over the country. As Dr. Stephen F. Cohen has pointed out, Western nations, with the U.S. leading the way, have been provoking Putin for decades. We’ve expanded NATO to include former Soviet states – Ukraine looks like the next target – and we’ve attacked allies of Russia, including Libya and Iraq. The U.S. – along with other Western nations – through our incursions into the politics, economics and national security of Russia and several of its allies, has effectively caused the situation that is now unfolding in Ukraine. Cohen is right.”

Savage points that Obama and his neocons, not conservatives, created a revolution in Ukraine to draw it away from Russia and put it, eventually, into NATO’s orbit.

While Trump has praised Russia and his advisers were supporting pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, neocons have openly praised the Ukrainian revolution as the best democratic example against dictatorship. The Ukrainian revolution was the biggest Soros revolution, massively funded by him.

Obama and his neocons want Ukraine in NATO and are willing to go to war over it. In contrast, Trump has shown, so far, no willingness to follow neocon passions for war in Ukraine against Russia.

Last month, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko invited Trump for a meeting, but, according to DailyMail, “the Ukrainian government says the Republican candidate blew them off.”

Yet, Hillary Clinton met Poroshenko and promised him that she would stand with Ukraine against “Russian aggression.”

While Obama, Hillary and neocons want Ukraine in NATO’s orbit and they are using the Ukrainian situation to strengthen NATO, Trump has again been in conflict with their interests.

The best explanation about neocons’ intent was given by Savage, who said in WND:

“The neocons… thrive on military conflict. When the world is at war, the neocons and the defense contractors who work with them make enormous amounts of money. The neocons don’t care which side you’re on, as long as they can work with you to create a political situation that they can grow into a war from which they will profit.”

Savage is right. And Trump agrees with him. But neocon-minded individuals do not agree. The Trevor Loudon blog said,

“If Trump is elected, you will have the Russians… in the White House. Trump’s advisers are very connected to Vladimir Putin and Russia. Trump himself has many ties as well and is friends with Putin. This is why Putin will try to sabotage Clinton with leaked emails, etc.”

Trump’s approach to seek to get along with Russia and meet Putin is correct, but despised by neocons.

Ronald Reagan tried Trump’s approach in the past, when Russia was the Soviet Union and was officially atheistic and communist. In that time, America under Reagan officially valued the Bible and Christian values. Today, the U.S. government officially despises these values, while Russia has officially left atheism and has embraced its Orthodox Christian Church.

It impossible for socialists Hillary and Obama to get along with modern Russia, especially after Russians passed a law banning homosexual propaganda to children.

Yet, if it was possible for evangelical Reagan to seek to get along with Soviet atheistic leaders, why should not Trump be commended for seeking to get along with a non-atheistic Russia?

With information from WND (WorldNetDaily).

Portuguese version of this article: Trump se encontrará com Putin antes de sua posse

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Why Do Evangelicals Prefer Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton?

Glenn Beck Says that Electing Hillary Clinton “Is a Moral, Ethical Choice”

If Brazilian Immigrants in the U.S. Are Accused of Being “Pigs,” Why Blame Trump?

A Brazilian Neocon?

Is Trump a KGB Agent?

Vladimir Putin publicly accused by U.S. government of plot to interfere in presidential election against Hillary Clinton and her party

Trump, Obama, Hillary and NATO

Olavo de Carvalho and His Nonsense on Trump and Russia

The Neocons vs. Donald Trump

Ion Mihai Pacepa and Disinformation

Ronald Reagan: A Christian Example against Communism

Exclusive Interview with William J. Murray, Defender of Persecuted Christians, who talks about modern Russia

“1984” Live! US Surveillance Scandal Is The Biggest Story Of Your Lifetime

By Julio Severo

“The (National Security Agency) NSA surveillance scandal is the biggest story of your lifetime” – that was, according WND, Michael Savage’s message all this week, as details emerged about the US government spying on Americans and people around the world.

However, “They obviously weren’t spying on Muslims, or people known to have associated with terrorists,” Savage pointed out. Otherwise, the authorities would have prevented the Boston Marathon bombing.

The White House assures that its massive surveillance is to stop terrorists, and yet it won’t snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.

The US government’s sweeping surveillance of most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents.

This is particularly disturbing in light of recent independent surveys of American mosques, which reveal some 80% of them preach violent jihad or distribute violent literature to worshippers.

So if the US massive surveillance is not aimed at Muslims, who were behind 11/9, what its aim? Throughout his administration, Obama has been charged of aiming at Christians and pro-lifers. More recently, the US Army and DHS labeled conservative Christians as “hate groups.”

This is not only an American problem. Two years ago, WND reported on DHS monitoring my blog. I am a Brazilian citizen. Why such surveillance on me? Are my pro-life and pro-family activities a threat to America?

Probably yes. A 2011 WND report said about the Obama plan to have the US as a global LGBT sex cop. In Brazil, I am in the frontlines against gay tyranny.

Thirty years ago, if someone had told me about a global surveillance program, I would have pointed Soviet Union as its source.

After my recent article was published on Free Republic about the NSA scandal, an American told me, “The US government has taken the road of anti-Christian, anti-freedom, pervert tyrants. I don’t know when it will be the end times, but I imagine the US creating an oppressive and hateful KGB ruled globe, would be a part of it.”

The leaks made by Edward Snowden reveal that there is a powerful American KGB watching you on Facebook, Skype, Google and other internet channels. There is no safe place. Big Brother is watching you.

Big Brother is, according to George Orwell’s “1984” novel, an omnipresent, totalitarian government keeping a watchful eye on its citizens.

In fact, sales of Orwell’s classic novel have rocketed in the wake of the scandal evolving around the National Security Agency surveillance programs. Last week, four editions of the book were in the top 40 of Amazon’s “Movers and Shakers” list. At one point one of the editions was up 10,000 percent.

Thanks to the massive, global US surveillance, “1984” is here, and what Edward Snowden has said about the U.S. government spying should send a chill up our spine. He said,

1 – “The majority of people in developed countries spend at least some time interacting with the Internet, and Governments are abusing that necessity in secret to extend their powers beyond what is necessary and appropriate.”

2 - “The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to.”

3 - “…I can’t in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building.”

4 - “The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything.”

5 - “With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your e-mails or your wife’s phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your e-mails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.”

6 - “Any analyst at any time can target anyone. I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President…”

7 - “…they are intent on making every conversation and every form of behavior in the world known to them.”

8 - “Even if you’re not doing anything wrong, you're being watched and recorded. …it’s getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong, you simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody, even by a wrong call, and then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with, and attack you on that basis, to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life.”

9 - “Allowing the U.S. government to intimidate its people with threats of retaliation for revealing wrongdoing is contrary to the public interest.”

10 - “Everyone everywhere now understands how bad things have gotten — and they’re talking about it. They have the power to decide for themselves whether they are willing to sacrifice their privacy to the surveillance state.”

11 - “I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under.”

12 - “I don’t want to live in a world where there's no privacy, and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity.”

13 - “The great fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. [People] won’t be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things... And in the months ahead, the years ahead, it’s only going to get worse. [The NSA will] say that… because of the crisis, the dangers that we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power, and there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny.”

Calling whistleblower Edward Snowden “a patriot, not a traitor,” Dr. Michael Savage declared that “the NSA scandal makes Watergate look like what it was: a green pea inside a tidal wave.”

Edward Snowden

What George Orwell “leaked” was, through his a novel, his perception about how a future government would watch people. Fiction has become reality. What Edward Snowden has leaked are facts about how the US government is already doing it.

Even though being a socialist, Orwell was not considered a “traitor” for revealing where socialism would take society. If his book, which is fiction, has been praised, much more deserving is Snowden’ act of revealing what is not fiction. It is “1984” live.

I agree with Joseph Farah, who said that Snowden should be granted immunity to speak everything he knows about how Big Brother is watching you.

With information from WND, Investors and The Economic Collapse.

Portuguese version of this article: “1984” ao vivo! Escândalo de monitoração dos EUA é a maior história da sua vida

Spanish version of this article: ¡“1984” en vivo! Escándalo de vigilancia en Estados Unidos es la más grande historia de su vida

French version of this article: «1984» en direct! Scandale du système de surveillance des États-Unis est la plus grande histoire de sa vie

Source: Julio Severo in English: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Recommended Reading:

Beware: You Are Being Monitored!

Homeland Security surveillance detected on Julio Severo website

US surveillance on blogs and websites