Tuesday, June 30, 2020

The Bail Companies are at it Again

The Bail Companies are at it Again 
by Miles Mathis 
First published June 10, 2020 

In a paper from from December 2019, we looked at the fake Hanukkah stabbing in Monsey, finding it had to do with bail reform in New York. As it turns out, bail companies all over the country have been bought out in the past 30 years by the huge investment groups like Blackrock, Fidelity, and so on. To maximize profit, bail had become more common and more expensive. 70% of those in jail at any one time haven't been charged with anything, but most end up paying bail which is never refunded—even though they aren't convicted or even indicted. Between 1990 and 2009, the percentage of those required to post bail rose from 37% to 61%, a 61% increase in less than two decades. Since we are now 11 years later, we can be sure that number has increased even more. I would guess it is more like 70% now. And blacks now pay 84% of bail in this country. 

However, due to complaints by their constituencies, some legislatures had noticed this problem and had begun to do something about it. The legislatures pushed, so the huge investment groups are pushing back. First, they ran that fake stabbing in Monsey about six months ago. That didn't do the job, so they are now running fake riots all over the country. These riots are doing triple and quadruple duty, as we have seen: making people even more scared, creating racial tension, taking our minds off the corona hoax and the huge theft from the treasury that accompanied it, and so on. But now we can see that in addition to that, these fake riots are advancing the bail game as well. How do I know? See  this article from the ringer.com, promoted today at Getpocket, entitled: It Changes Who Has the Power: How Bail Funds Across the Country Are Responding to Protests. 

The graphic at the top of the page repeats “DONATE NOW” 45 times. The article informs us about the “non-profit” Nashville Community Bail Fund, which collects donations from the community to bail people out of jail who can't afford it. We are told the riots have driven donations up, which is supposed to make us feel toasty. And it might, until we remember that the Bail Fund is not truly non-profit. The local organization may be non-profit, but someone is profiting here, aren't they? Who? That would be those who the NCBF are paying: the huge bail companies. Their profits just went way up, didn't they? Do you really think that was an accident? It just happened that way? 

No, we can tell we are in the middle of yet another conjob here, since it is easy to spot this article as another product of the spooks. Look closer. The article starts with the sob story of Rahim Buford of Nashville, one of 19 children (like the 19 hijackers, 19 rebels with Castro, 19 hung in Salem, etc.), who, at age 18 (aces and eights, Chai), shot a gun into the floor at a store he was robbing, but—unlucky him—it ricocheted and hit the store manager, killing him. Yeah, I'm sure that happened. Buford spent the next 26 years in Tennessee prisons. He was paroled in 2015=8, and is now one of two full-time organizers at NCBF. 

So let's so a simple people search on this Rahim Buford. The first thing we notice is that Intelius has changed. It used to be almost instantaneous, but it has now switched to the Instant checkmate format, which searches slowly while it asks you follow up questions about your search. The second thing we notice is that there is no Rahim Buford listed as ever living in Tennessee. The only result is Abdullah Rahim of Madison, TN, no age, with a relative listed with the name Ronniecia Buford. Abdullah has also lived in Cerritos, CA. Instant checkmate tells us exactly the same thing. Which is strange in itself, since in my experience, Intelius and Instantcheckmate never tell us exactly the same thing. It looks like the two sites have been linked recently, possibly in response to me and my guest writers. 

At any rate, Rahim Buford doesn't exist, according to the big computers, which is exactly what I expected. Which means this article at theringer is total BS. 

Next we are told that NCBF normally takes in about $40,000 a year. It just took in $50,000 in 72 hours. Do you want me to do the math for you, so you can see the increase there? That is an increase of 152 times, or over 15,000%. If they kept that up for the whole year, they would collect almost $6.1 million. So you can see why they are publishing this article. They want you to go donate to some “non-profit”, so that these already obscenely wealthy people can make 15,000% profit. And it isn't just in Tennessee. Across the country there are over 100 of these bail funds collecting increased donations. 

We are assured: “Now, with their combined efforts, bail funds are shifting the power wielded by criminal justice systems to the communities they police.” 

Except that they aren't. Paying bail doesn't shift power to the community. How could it do that? Our author doesn't answer that question, of course, he just floats the idea as another toasty one. No, paying bail only shifts money to the big bail companies who are collecting it. Those rich people don't count as “the community”. 

We are told paying this bail stops police violence. Again, how? Do you think these trillionaire investment groups are investing in police education programs? Get real. 

In Minnesota, we are told the Minnesota Freedom Fund has collected $31 million in two weeks from 800,000 donators. But since that Fund was supposed to go to bail, the money collected is far beyond local needs. Average bail in Minnesota is $150, so they can now bail out 207,000 people. In 2018, they bailed out about 100 people with $10,000. So where will the excess money go? We don't know, because we know almost nothing about this MFF. Its website doesn't tell us anything about it. Neither the home page nor the about page have any information. Who founded this Fund? Who manages it? Who oversees it? How do we know how much has been collected? Do you think they are going to post financial statements? Unlikely, since this whole thing looks like another CIA front. We are told celebrities have donated large amounts, but we are told a lot of things that aren't true. For myself, I don't believe these celebrities have donated anything. I don't believe anything these people say, or anything said about them. They are actors: they lie for a living. So does the media. 

If we do a Google search on the Minnesota Freedom Fund, we are told there is a page for “Staff and Board”, but if we click on that we are taken to  an empty page on the site.

If you still aren't sure about the MFF, you may want to study its executive director, Tonya Honsey At that link, you will see they admit she is a former drug addict, drug pusher, and convicted thief, who— for some reason not given—has also been appointed to the State Sentencing Guidelines Commission. We keep looking for some qualifications in that article, beyond being a criminal, but they never come. We are only told she has been working in the construction industry. Cement, I guess. 

Elsewhere, we are told she got both positions due to being “a George Soros acolyte.” Breitbart confirms that, 

Honsey was named a Soros Justice Fellow by the Open Society Foundations in 2019. 

That establishes our link to the huge investment groups, doesn't it? MFF was funded by grants from the University of Minnesota, including the Acara Challenge. But we aren't told who funds those grants. I think we may assume it is Soros—real name Schwartz Gyorgy, Hungarian Jew. The funniest thing is that a search on this finds Soros over and over being labelled a liberal. Soros is about as liberal as J. P. Morgan. In other words, he is a fascist hiding behind a blue donkey. About the last thing he wants is an open society or an empowered populace. None of the rich guys want that or ever have. They have prospered by top-down control, which is the opposite of liberal by definition. That is what Soros has always been about. 

Like Honsey, Soros is a convicted crook. The government of France convicted him of insider trading in 2006, and gave him a large fine, though it should have been far larger and included jail time. He should also have been convicted of swindling the UK taxpayers in 1992, when he shorted the pound, taking about $5 billion in the heist. But the UK government was in on the heist, since their own law said the taxpayers had to buy something it was not in their interest to buy. That was the nut of the con right there, though no one ever tells you that. It was insider trading of the best/worst kind, since Soros had help from the government itself. You can't sell short without short buyers, you see. 
Minnesota Freedom Fund
Wikipedia tells us the founder of MFF is Simon David Cecil, Jewish of course (possibly linked to the Cecils in the peerage—his looks confirm that possibility, since many prominent Cecil's there are redheads), but has no other useful information for us. . except for blatant numerology. It tells us in 2017 the Fund bailed out 33 people. Really, 33, who would have guessed? 
Sir Robert Cecil (1563–1612), 1st Earl of Salisbury | Art UK
Note the red beard there on Cecil, the 1st Earl of Salisbury. He was Secretary of State and Lord High Treasurer under Elizabeth I. 
Lord David Cecil - WikipediaMinnesota Freedom Fund
Simon Cecil also looks like Lord David Cecil: 

Same build, face shape, and hairline. Lord Cecil's mother was a Gore, so our Cecil may be related to Al Gore. That would fit like a glove, wouldn't it? Remember, Gore is a Soros protege. The Washington Times called Soros his Sugar Daddy. 

Board President at MFF is Gregory Pearce Lewin, 29, also Jewish. He seems kind of young to be a Board President. 

There are a lot of Lewin's in the peerage as well, since the Barons Lewin are prominent in the Merchant Taylors, where they are related to the Spencers. They also produced many admirals. They are related to the Queen through the Webbs. 

Lewin and Cecil look like kid fronts for this thing. Do you think we might be able to connect them to the big investment groups like Blackrock? My guess is yes, though I doubt we can do it with information posted online. But since we already linked Honsey to Soros and through him to the Quantum Group, I should not give up hope. The first thing I would like to know are the fathers and mothers of Cecil and Lewin. I bet something big is lurking there. 

Simon Cecil has no real bio posted online, but there are definitely peerage Cecils in the US. They married into the Vanderbilt clan in 1924, when John Cecil married Cornelia Stuyvesant Vanderbilt. He was the grandson of the Marquess of Exeter and Mary Tyssen-Amherst, linking us to all sorts of Nazi action. Mary's father was a baron, and her mother was. . . Margaret Mitford. Margaret's father was an admiral, and her cousins were the Mitford sisters, one of whom was a friend of Hitler. The name Tyssen also links us to the Nazis, since the Tyssens link us to Fritz Thyssen, German industrialist billionaire and bankroller of Hitler. 

Cornelia Vanderbilt was the daughter of George Washington Vanderbilt II, who was the grandson of Cornelius Vanderbilt. They were from Staten Island, NY, and Biltmore, NC. They have many grandchildren in the US. 

According to Intelius, we are looking at Simon David Cecil, 37, related to Lawrence, Noah, and Wilson Cecil, as well as Debra Bruce. Instant checkmate also puts him in San Salvador. The name Debra Bruce is interesting, since the Bruces are also possible nobility/royalty. Think Robert the Bruce. 

Greg Lewin has a page at MyLife.com that gives up some info. There we find he is from Wilmington, DE, another CIA HQ. Related there to Saunders, Abdul Ali, Carmelo Cannuli, William E. Stewart (77), Kleinstein, Cabrera, Stephanie A. Frey (51), and Lori Bruce. Could Bruce link him to Simon Cecil? Could Frey link him to Minneapolis Mayor Frey (below)? 
Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis Had Promised to Improve Police ...
Another Jew controlling this story. Getting old, isn't it? Think your governor or mayor isn't Jewish? Guess what, you are probably wrong. 

I told you it wouldn't be easy to get information on these guys, but maybe my readers can send me something. I am sure I am on the right track, since it is always the same people running these cons. There is no chance this event just accidentally includes Cecils and Lewins. 

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Part 2: Clinton Cash....Hillary's Reset....Indian Nukes


Clinton Cash
by Peter Schweizer

3
Hillary’s Reset 
THE RUSSIAN URANIUM DEAL 
Perhaps Hillary Clinton and Vladimir Putin had gotten off to a rough start. When she was running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, Hillary had talked tough about the Russian president. Contradicting President George W. Bush’s oft-quoted statement that he “was able to get a sense of [Putin’s] soul,” Hillary had pointedly countered that Putin “doesn’t have a soul.” When asked about the comment, Putin shot back, “At a minimum, a head of state should have a head.” 

But when Hillary was confirmed as secretary of state in January 2009, dealing with Vladimir Putin would become a major part of her job. And the uranium deal in Kazakhstan, whose shareholders were sending in tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and were also providing speech making opportunities for Bill, would set the stage to bring Putin into the cast of characters. 

The uranium deal that was sealed in 2005 during Bill Clinton’s visit to Kazakhstan and then fortified by the 2007 Kazakh-approved merger would soon morph into a third transaction intersecting with some of Hillary’s most consequential and difficult national security decisions as secretary of state. And as we will see, there is no evidence that she disclosed to US government ethics officials, the White House, or her cabinet colleagues the apparent conflicts of interest at play as she steered US nuclear policy. 

In the final years of the Bush administration, relations with Moscow had cooled. The Russian incursion into neighboring Georgia, Bush’s plans to erect a missile-defense shield, and Russian pressures on Ukraine had heightened tensions between the two nuclear powers. 1 What President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had in mind was a “reset.” At Foggy Bottom, Hillary offered the Kremlin a chance to clean the slate and begin anew. 2 

Moscow was all in favor of a reset and viewed it as an opportunity to develop more trade and investment opportunities with the West. 3 And in spite of her pointed comments about Putin’s soul, Hillary’s appointment as secretary of state was generally praised in Moscow. Authorities saw her as offering a “balanced view of US relations with the Russian Federation.” 4 She was “by far not the worst” outcome for Moscow, said one official, noting that there were advisers around Obama who were “very critical of our country.” 5 Not a ringing endorsement perhaps, but Hillary was someone the Russians believed they could work with. 

At the heart of the reset was what Newsweek called “a bevy of potential business deals.” 6 These included deals involving oil and natural gas, which are the backbone of the Russian economy. 7 But not far behind were Kremlin ambitions to expand its share of the world nuclear market. Uranium, civilian nuclear power plants, and the technical services that supported them were considered a huge growth industry for Moscow. 8 In 2006 the Kremlin had approved plans “to spend $10 billion to increase Russia’s annual uranium production by 600 percent.” 9 Putin considered the nuclear energy sector “a priority branch for the country, which makes Russia a great power.” 10 Russia not only wanted to build nuclear plants around the world, it also wanted to control a large chunk of the global uranium market. 11 

But an important side note to the Russian reset was how it involved a collection of foreign investors who had poured vast sums of money into the Clinton Foundation and who continued to sponsor lucrative speeches for Bill. Those investors stood to gain enormously from the decisions Hillary made as secretary of state. 

The Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency (Rosatom) handles all things nuclear in Russia. Unlike the US Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rosatom is not just deeply imbedded with civilian nuclear power but actually controls the Russian nuclear arsenal. 12 

Longtime Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko is a tall, lanky technocrat who served in the Komsomol, the Soviet Youth League, during the Soviet era. He went on to become energy minister and then prime minister of Russia while Bill Clinton was president of the United States. (Indeed, when Russian president Boris Yeltsin made Kiriyenko prime minister in 1998, it brought “instant endorsements” from the Clinton administration.) 13 He and his agency operate in a special way in Russia, without any independent supervision from the Russian parliament. Rosatom “is subject only to the decision making of the Kremlin,” as one nuclear scholar at UC Berkeley puts it. “Unlike the oil and gas industries, the nuclear sector is under the direct supervision of the state.” 14 

Rosatom not only built the controversial Bushehr nuclear reactors in Iran, it also supplies them with uranium. 15 Rosatom also operates in North Korea, Venezuela, and Myanmar. 16 As the agency makes clear in its annual report, it places a primacy on protecting information “constituting state secrets.” 

During her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton and senior aides received numerous diplomatic cables discussing Moscow’s nuclear ambitions. In October 2009, for example, she received a cable exposing Rosatom’s plan to leverage Ukraine into a long-range supply contract with the Russian state nuclear fuel company, and its efforts to create “zones of pressure” on Eastern European governments. 17 

In December 2009 the US ambassador to Kazakhstan sent a classified cable to Washington laying out Russian efforts to exert control over Kazakh uranium markets. 18 The cable noted that Rosatom sought to control this market as part of a broader initiative to reestablish itself as a world power. The memo also stated that Russian military intelligence, the GRU, was involved in these nuclear ambitions. 19 

Even before that cable was sent, there were signs of Russian moves on the uranium market. In June 2009 Rosatom bought a stake in Uranium One. It was not a controlling stake, only 17 percent, but the Russians were just getting started. 20 

Uranium One was an inviting target. Production was booming, jumping from 2 million pounds of uranium in 2007 to 7.4 million in 2010. But Uranium One was also aggressively buying uranium assets in the United States. By 2010 the Canadian company had “61 ongoing or planned projects on some 293,000 acres in Wyoming.” 21 The firm also owned ten thousand acres of uranium claims in Utah, as well as holdings in Texas and South Dakota. 22 In sum, Uranium One was projected to control up to half of US uranium output by 2015. 

In December 2009 Rosatom chief Kiriyenko appeared before the Presidium, a selection of Russian government officials. He laid out an aggressive plan to acquire uranium assets outside of Russia. “An opportunity has opened up to buy foreign assets that are profitable and, for now, not very expensive,” he said. “With this program of buying uranium deposits, we can guarantee this to any customers of ours.” Then prime minister Putin announced at the meeting that the Russian government would allocate the money for the transactions to Rosatom’s equity capital. 23 

The Kremlin’s move came at a sensitive time. Hillary Clinton was directing negotiations for the 123 Agreement with the Russian government concerning civilian nuclear energy. The 123 Agreement is a nuclear nonproliferation treaty whose name derives from the fact that it falls under Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act. It requires that the United States have a 123 Agreement negotiated and in place to make nuclear cooperation possible with foreign countries. In short, as the US State Department put it, the 123 Agreement with Russia would “support commercial interests by allowing U.S. and Russian firms to team up more easily in joint ventures.” 

The pact had previously been negotiated by the Bush administration, but when Russian forces went into Georgia in 2008, the administration withdrew a request that Congress approve it. The Obama/Clinton reset meant that the agreement was back on and (along with input from the US Department of Energy) that Hillary was in charge. Congress would eventually approve the 123 Agreement in January 2011. 

In March 2010 Hillary was in Moscow for a meeting with Putin. Putin had set in motion the purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium One by Rosatom only a few months earlier. During a meeting on March 19, Hillary and Putin discussed a wide variety of issues related to trade. He expressed displeasure with US trade policy, presumably because Russian companies were affected by US sanctions. Whether the Uranium One deal was discussed is not known. 

The primary purpose of Hillary’s trip was to increase pressure on Iran. Instead, Putin promised Moscow’s assistance with the completion of a civil nuclear power station by the summer. Hillary blasted the move, saying it “would be premature to go forward with any project at this time, because we want to send an unequivocal message to the Iranians.” 24 

As part of its reset with Moscow, the Obama administration wanted to make progress on the New START nuclear talks and sought commercial opportunities in areas like civilian nuclear power. On that front, Hillary was optimistic. “If we continue to work together, we can move beyond the problems to greater opportunities.” 

In May 2010 the Obama administration submitted the proposed text of the US-Russian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement to Congress. Weeks later, Rosatom announced it was seeking to buy majority control (52 percent) of Uranium One. To some observers in the uranium market, it all made sense. “It was no accident that Rosatom’s choice fell to Uranium One,” wrote one paper, given the uranium assets it held. 25 

Several multi-million-dollar Clinton Foundation donors were at the center of the deal. As we saw in the previous chapter, one of these, Ian Telfer, was chairman of Uranium One. A longtime mining investor and associate of Frank Giustra, Telfer made his fortune as a gold investor and has served as the chairman of the World Gold Council. 

The Clinton Foundation also failed to disclose major contributions from entities controlled by those involved in the Uranium One deal. Thus, beginning in 2009, the company’s chairman, Telfer, quietly started funneling what would become $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation through a Canadian entity he controlled called the Fernwood Foundation. 26 According to records released by the Clinton Foundation, Telfer had personally contributed $100,001 to $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2007. But according to Canadian tax records, Telfer’s Fernwood Foundation donated more than $2 million to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state. The Clinton Foundation’s public disclosures don’t list Fernwood as a donor. 27 

In 2009 Fernwood contributed $1 million to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSCI). 28 In 2010 its donation was $250,000. In 2011 it gave another $600,000 and in 2012 the amount was $500,000. 29 According to Canadian tax records, nearly all of the funds CGSCI collects are transferred directly to the Clinton Foundation in New York. 30 In other words, it operates as a pass-through. 

The fact that these donations are not listed in Clinton Foundation public disclosures violates the Clinton Foundation’s memorandum of understanding with the Obama White House described in chapter 1, and contradicts Hillary’s correspondence with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It also raises questions about what other undisclosed multimillion-dollar donations from foreign entities could have been channeled to the Clinton Foundation. 

The Russian uranium deal involved other major Clinton Foundation donors. Two men listed as “financial advisors” for Uranium One and the Russia deal, Robert Disbrow and Paul Reynolds, were also multimillion-dollar contributors. 31 Another important shareholder in Uranium One was US Global Investor Funds, whose CEO was Frank Holmes. 32 Holmes was not only a major contributor to the foundation, he was also the chairman of Giustra’s Endeavour Mining Capital Corp. Holmes describes himself as “an advisor to the William J. Clinton Foundation on sustainable development in countries with resource-based economies.” 33 The managing director for global affairs at Endeavour Financial during this deal was Eric Nonacs, who simultaneously served as “senior advisor” to the Clinton Foundation. Nonacs, before taking the job, had been a foreign policy adviser to Bill during his post-presidential years. 34 

As part of the merger with Uranium One, key shareholders, including Telfer and Giustra, were required to hold their shares for at least six months. 35 (Dzhakishev believes that Giustra made $300 million in the deal.) 36 Giustra’s firm, Endeavour Financial, continued to act as a financial adviser to Uranium One. In July 2008, for example, they arranged credit for the firm as part of a deal involving several Canadian investment banks. 37 In early 2008, according to Rosatom executive Vadim Zhivov, negotiations had already begun between Rosatom and Uranium One to buy a stake in the company. 38 

Was Giustra an investor in Uranium One via US Global Investor Funds? He did not return repeated calls asking for comment. It is unclear whether by 2010 Giustra was still directly involved in the deal, as he often conducts deals through shell companies. 39 

For shareholders of Uranium One, the Russian government acquisition would mean huge payouts. In addition to giving every shareholder a special one-dollar-per-share dividend, Moscow had big plans for Uranium One. 40 According to corporate records, Telfer alone had shares and options amounting to more than 1.6 million shares. 41 

“We would like just to use Uranium One as the global platform for future growth and all the future acquisitions and all M&A activity,” said Zhivov, who directed the transaction for Rosatom. 42 Moscow wanted Uranium One Inc. “to be transformed into a global growth platform.” 43 This had to sound lucrative to Canadian investors, though Zhivov admitted there was a “hard road ahead” to prove that “a Russian state-owned company can . . . play by the rules of the modern developed world.” 44 

Russia wanted the deal for commercial and strategic reasons. The Canadian investors wanted the deal because it stood to make them richer. But politics in the United States would prove critical. Because uranium is a strategic industry, the Russian purchase of a Canadian company holding massive US assets required US government approval. Playing a central role in whether approval was granted was none other than Hillary Clinton. 

When the Uranium One deal was announced in June 2010, news of the bid “panicked some shareholders and alarmed industry observers worried that the Vancouver-based company might end up serving the Kremlin’s strategic interests,” as one Canadian newspaper put it. 45 

The Kremlin went into full public relations mode. It dispatched Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak to meet with mining executives in Colorado to soothe concerns about the deal. “Do you mind some investment? It is a normal commercial operation—not something that is operating on any political guidance,” he said in an interview. “It doesn’t matter whether it is uranium or steel or oil or gas,” Kislyak said. “What is important is that the positive ties between our two countries seem to be getting more and more expanded. Politically, that is very important.” 46 

Kislyak’s distinction between business and politics is highly misleading: the funds for the Uranium One acquisition came from Putin directly and were approved by the Russian Presidium. And of course Russia has a history of using natural gas and energy exports to neighboring countries as a political tool. 47 

Four senior congressmen—Peter King of the Homeland Security Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Foreign Affairs, Spencer Bachus of Financial Services, and Howard McKeon of Armed Services —voiced grave concerns about the deal. They were troubled by Rosatom’s “activities—and the context within which it operates in Russia—[which] should raise very serious concerns for United States national security interests.” The fact that Rosatom had helped Iran in building the Bushehr nuclear power plant “should raise red flags. . . . Although Uranium One USA officials are reportedly skeptical that the transaction would result in the transfer of any mined uranium to Iran, we remain concerned that Iran could receive uranium supplies through direct or secondary proliferation,” they wrote. “We believe the take-over of essential US nuclear resources by a government-owned Russian agency . . . would not advance the national security interests of the United States.” 48 

Wyoming senator John Barrasso also wrote a letter to the Obama administration raising concerns about Russian control of uranium assets in his state, citing Russia’s “disturbing record of supporting nuclear programs in countries that are openly hostile to the United States, specifically Iran and Venezuela.” 49 

In short, a bipartisan group of congressmen felt that Russia could not be trusted to allocate US uranium in keeping with US nuclear interests. Then congressman Ed Markey pushed a bill in the House with Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, “expressing disfavor of the Congress regarding the proposed agreement for cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation.” 50 Markey said, “Russia continues to train Iranian nuclear physicists, supply sensitive nuclear technology to Iran. . . . Does Russia want cooperation with the United States, or with Iran and Syria? Because it can’t have both.” 51 

In light of the obvious national security concerns, Uranium One and Rosatom officials offered concessions. Uranium One, for example, did not have an export license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) allowing it to ship uranium outside of the United States. Supporters of the deal argued, therefore, that no one should fear that American uranium might end up in, say, Iranian reactors. 52 But in correspondence with the NRC, Uranium One executives did not rule out trying to obtain an export license in the future. They could only say that “Uranium One does not intend today (and does not envision in the foreseeable future) any export of U3O8 from the United States derived from the Uranium One U.S. Facilities.” 53 

Despite the glaring concerns, the Russian majority control purchase of Uranium One was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS is a small and somewhat secretive executive branch task force created in 1975 to evaluate any investment transactions that might have a direct effect on American national security. Besides the secretary of state, CFIUS includes cabinet officials such as the secretary of defense, the secretary of homeland security, and the treasury secretary. CFIUS wields enormous power to stop or limit investment deals. Ironically, Uranium One officials, after CFIUS approved the deal, did mention global markets as an important reason why the deal made sense. “Donna Wichers, Uranium One Senior Vice President, said her company is pushing for uranium mines in Wyoming with an eye toward growing markets both in the United States and abroad as countries plan for new nuclear power reactors. ‘We’ve got China —they’re looking at opening 500 nuclear power plants in the next 40 years; India—several hundred. . . . So you can see worldwide there is a huge demand for nuclear power.’” 54 

There were all sorts of warning signs about Russia’s push into the uranium market. For example, the US International Trade Commission was in the midst of a large investigation into allegations dating as far back as 1991 that Russia was dumping uranium on US markets to damage the American uranium industry. 55 In early 2010 Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, appeared before a congressional committee and warned about the perils of doing business with state-owned entities in Russia, stating that “criminally linked oligarchs will enhance the ability of state or state-allied actors to undermine competition in gas, oil, aluminum and precious metal markets.” He didn’t name specific Russian entities involved, but referred to the problem as “a growing nexus in Russian and Eurasian states among governments, organized crime, intelligence services and big business figures.” He indicated that the United States needed to address the Russian instances of “bribery, fraud, violence and corrupt alliances with state actors to gain the upper hand against legitimate businesses.” 56 

In the midst of this complex and controversial transaction, which would require US cabinet–level approval, a small Canadian investment company named Salida Capital became intimately involved with the Clinton Foundation. 

According to Canadian tax records, Salida Capital received in 2010 an anonymous donation of $3.3 million into their charitable foundation (Salida Capital Foundation), which allowed the tiny firm to make the dramatic announcement that it would contribute millions to the Clinton Foundation. 57 In 2010 it donated $780,220 to the Clinton Foundation. This amounted to about 90 percent of all Salida’s charitable giving that year. It was part of a multimillion-dollar commitment that would send more than $2.6 million to the Clintons between 2010 and 2012. 58 

Salida Capital also cosponsored a speech by Bill Clinton on May 21, 2010, in Calgary, Canada. While the speech was publicly listed by the Clintons as an event for “The Power Within,” a Canadian motivational-speaking organization, according to State Department documents filed by Bill Clinton’s office, sponsors for the event included Salida Capital. 

Salida Capital invests in natural resource companies, including several in the Russian-dominated portions of Ukraine. In 2010, when Salida moved aggressively into the Ukrainian market, their chief business partner in the country happened to be the personal adviser to Energy Minister Yuri Boyko, who helped create the trading company Vladimir Putin used to control the Ukrainian natural gas trade. Boyko was described in a confidential State Department cable as being “very close to Russia” and as the “point of contact for the Kremlin” on energy dealings in the country. 59 

In 2011 a company named Salida Capital would be identified in a Rosatom annual report as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Russian state nuclear agency. 60 Is it the same firm? There is compelling evidence that it is, but we cannot say for sure. 61 

I contacted Salida Capital in Toronto on three occasions and provided it with the opportunity to deny that it is connected to the Salida Capital listed as a subsidiary of Rosatom. It has refused comment. 

The timing of events raises questions. If it were the same firm, an entity owned and controlled by Rosatom funneled millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation at the very time Hillary would have been involved in deciding whether to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One. 62 

But the Clintons’ fortune didn’t end there. In June, shortly after the Rosatom deal was announced, Bill was in Moscow for a particularly well-compensated speech. He was paid $500,000 to deliver remarks at an event organized by a firm called Renaissance Capital (RenCap). 63 Bill had not given a speech in Russia in over five years and then it had been for a British firm, Adam Smith International. His pay for that speech was only $195,000. 64 

RenCap, which is registered in Cyprus, is populated by former Russian intelligence officers with close ties to Putin. In correspondence with the State Department seeking approval for the speech, Clinton’s office simply describes the firm as “an investment bank focusing on emerging markets.” According to Businessweek, when Putin became president of Russia in 2000, RenCap “hired several executives with connections to the Kremlin and Russian intelligence service, now known as the FSB [Russian Domestic Intelligence Service].” Yuri Kobaladze, executive director at the firm, served for thirty-two years as a KGB and SVR (the foreign intelligence arm of the Russian government) officer, retiring with the rank of general. 65 Yuri Sagaidak, the deputy general director at RenCap, was a colonel in the KGB. 66 Vladimir Dzhabarov served simultaneously as an officer in the FSB and first vice president at RenCap from 2006 to 2009. 67 

RenCap was also watching the Uranium One deal. Only three weeks before Clinton’s speech, on May 27, RenCap had been pushing Uranium One stock. “We believe the company is well positioned to provide impressive volume growth in the global sector and play the uranium spot price recovery,” RenCap wrote in a twenty-eight-page report on the company. It actively encouraged investors to buy the stock. 68 

Clinton’s hour-long, half-million-dollar speech on the theme of Russia “going global” was followed by a plenary session that included Renaissance Capital executives and senior Russian government officials.

During his Moscow visit, Bill also met with Putin himself. 

Just days earlier the FBI had made a series of arrests, breaking up a Russian spy ring. Ten sleeper agents, using encrypted data transferred through digital images, invisible ink, and a sophisticated system for transferring information by switching bags at a train station in Queens, had been broken up. Among the spy ring’s targets: a leading fundraiser for Hillary who also happened to be a Clinton friend. A Russian sleeper agent named “Cynthia Murphy” was instructed “to single out tidbits unknown publicly but revealed in private by sources close to State Department.” 69 According to the FBI, intercepted communications showed that the chief assignment of the ring would be “to search and develop ties in policy-making circles in U.S.” 70 

When Bill sat down with Putin, it didn’t take long for the subject of Russian espionage to come up. “You have come to Moscow at the exact right time,” Putin told the former president, according to the New York Times. Waving a finger at him, Putin continued, “Your police have gotten carried away, putting people in jail.” 71 In response, “Clinton appeared to chuckle.” 72 

Clinton and Putin had a close relationship. President Boris Yeltsin first appointed Putin prime minister in 1999, while Bill was still president, and they had remained in contact ever since. In January 2009, while at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill had gone to Putin’s private party at the Sheraton, where he was greeted by the Russian leader as “our good friend” before cheering him with vodka shots. The pair then headed off to a private room where they “talked deep into the night.” 73 In September 2013, as the Ukrainian crisis built, Clinton offered what the Russian news agency RIA Novosti called “Rare U.S. Praise for Putin” on CNN. Clinton described the Russian leader as “very smart” and “brutally blunt.” When he was asked by CNN’s Piers Morgan if Putin ever reneged on a deal, Clinton responded: “He did not. He kept his word on all the deals we made.” 74 

Remember, for the Russian purchase of Uranium One to go through, it required approval by CFIUS, of which Hillary was a member. “We have provided all relevant information requested in the U.S., and elsewhere and we expect approval in due time,” said spokesman Dmitry Shulga. 75 

Hillary Clinton had long had a reputation as a CFIUS hawk, opposing the sale of US strategic assets to foreign governments. She had also been a consistent critic of lax reviews by that body in the past. After a Bush administration CFIUS review approved the 2005 purchase of several ports in the United States by the sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, then senator Clinton was quick to denounce it. When the Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings on the matter in early 2006, Hillary promptly assumed the role of chief prosecutor. She not only argued that the CFIUS decision was wrong, she condemned administration officials for failing to consider the national security implications of the ports deal. She was particularly concerned because the deal involved not just a foreign company, but a foreign government. “For many of us,” she said, “there is a significant difference between a private company and a foreign government entity.” 76 

In 2007 Hillary led the charge to pass legislation to significantly strengthen CFIUS. And during her 2008 presidential bid, it was Hillary alone among the major candidates from either party who raised the case for strengthening CFIUS as an important way to protect America’s economic sovereignty and national security. Her presidential campaign rightly described her as “an outspoken proponent of strengthening CFIUS.” 77 

When she became secretary of state, Hillary Clinton continued to support a robust CFIUS and led efforts by the panel to block Chinese companies from buying a mining business, a fiber-optic company, and even a wind farm in Oregon. 78 

But however hawkish Hillary might have been on other deals, this one sailed through. The Russian purchase of Uranium One was approved by CFIUS on October 22, 2010. Hillary’s opposition would have been enough under CFIUS rules to have the decision on the transaction kicked up to the president. That never happened. 

The result: Uranium One and half of projected American uranium production were transferred to a private company controlled in turn by the Russian State Nuclear Agency. Strangely enough, when Uranium One requested approval from CFIUS by the federal government, Ian Telfer, a major Clinton Foundation donor, was chairman of the board, a position he continues to hold. 

In 2010, in reporting to the US government, Russian officials said they were looking to buy just slightly more than 50 percent of the company and promised “not [to] increase its share in Uranium One, Inc.” 79 But by the beginning of 2013, the Russian government moved to buy out the company’s other shareholders entirely. Today it owns the company outright. 80 [kept their word huh? DC]

The Russian purchase of a large share of America’s uranium assets raised serious national security concerns for precisely the same reasons Hillary had condemned previous deals. A foreign government would now have direct control over a very valuable commodity; the Russian government would reap hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues every year; and it would allow the Russian government to use Uranium One assets to honor supply contracts with US reactors while freeing up other uranium assets to send to more dangerous regions of the world—where Russia was already known to be involved. Lawmakers in Washington had raised these concerns. [had raised concerns? how about you stop it DC]

Still, despite a long record of publicly opposing such deals, Hillary didn’t object. Why the apparent reversal? Could it be because shareholders involved in the transactions had transferred approximately $145 million to the Clinton Foundation or its initiatives? Or because her husband had profited from lucrative speaking deals arranged by companies associated with those who stood to profit from the deal? Could it be because Bill—and possibly she herself—had quietly helped build the uranium assets for the company to begin with? These questions can only be answered by Hillary herself. What is clear is that based on State Department ethics documents, she never revealed these transactions to her colleagues, the Obama White House, or to Capitol Hill. 

For Moscow, the approval was a major victory. Kiriyenko, the head of Rosatom, told Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that the United States would now become “a key market” for Rosatom. 81 Because Uranium One also owned the rights to those large mines in Kazakhstan, uranium flows to Russia increased. As one Uranium One official put it in a corporate presentation, the company’s operations “facilitate substantial exports of uranium to Russia.” 82 

In 2013 Rosatom announced plans to take 100 percent control of Uranium One. It didn’t even bother to ask the Obama administration for approval this time, because the transaction “involved the same parties” and the move did not technically “change the corporate structure of Uranium One.” 83 

Pravda hailed the move with an over-the-top headline: “RUSSIAN NUCLEAR ENERGY CONQUERS THE WORLD.” Taking full control of Uranium One would “consolidate control over uranium assets in the former Soviet Union and pave the way for the expansion of access to resources in Australia and South Africa.” 84 The Russian takeover of Uranium One yielded shareholders a premium price. Rosatom offered Telfer and other shareholders a 32 percent premium on the share price, yielding them millions. 85 

In the fall of 2013 Rosatom passed operational control of the Bushehr nuclear reactor to Iran, and in September Vladimir Putin and Iranian president Hassan Rouhani announced that “Tehran and Moscow will cooperate in the future construction of a second nuclear power plant at Bushehr,” adding that “construction work is to start soon.” 86 

Meanwhile, Uranium One made an audacious bid to mine for uranium on state land in Arizona, near the Grand Canyon. Using a shell corporation called Wate Mining, it proposed accessing the site through Navajo Nation lands. The company apparently hoped that the Navajo Nation wouldn’t notice who controlled the company, which was obscured on government forms. “The fact that the applicant failed to fully disclose ownership information does not sit well,” said the Navajo Nation Department of Justice. 87 Plans for the mine have been suspended in light of protests. 88 

Global deals involving the transfer of funds and nuclear technology were not limited to Russia. Another troubling transaction that occurred during the same period, while Hillary was in the Senate, involved characters representing India whose political interests appear to have been advanced by their friendship with the Clintons—accompanied in turn by large donations and payments.

Monday, June 15, 2020

Part 2: Planet Rothschild..1821-1880

Planet Rothschild
by M.S.King

DECEMBER, 1823 
THE MONROE DOCTRINE 
The Monroe Doctrine is aimed at curbing European influence in ‘The Americas’. President James Monroe’s policy states that the US will not interfere in the colonial affairs of Europe, but would regard further colonization in the America’s as an act of aggression, which would trigger US intervention. 
Monroe Doctrine CartoonsHas the U.S. begun a new Monroe Doctrine in the Middle East? – The ...
As Spanish colonies struggle for independence, Monroe seeks to prevent the establishment of puppet British or French monarchies in their place. Whether or not Spain keeps its colonies does not concern Monroe. His goal is to prevent the “balance-of-power” politics of Europe from spreading to the Americas, and thus threatening the young USA.

1825 
THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD BAILS 
BRITAIN OUT OF THE “PANIC OF 1825” 
The Panic of 1825 is a stock market crash that arises, in part, out of speculative investments in Latin America. As is always the case, the crisis is precipitated by the expansionary monetary policy – in this case from the Bank of England. This fuels a stock market bubble. The inevitable tightening of money pops it. 

The crisis leads to the closing of six London banks and sixty country banks in England; but was also manifest in the markets of Europe, Latin America, and the United States. Nathan Rothschild steps up to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to stay afloat. 

An infusion of gold reserves from the Rothschild-affiliated Banque de France also helps to save the Bank of England from complete collapse. As if the family didn’t have enough wealth and power. The House’s bailout / buy up of 1825 makes them even bigger! 
FINANCIAL MARKET BUBBLES AND CRASHESThe House of Rothschild: . Money's prophets, 1798-1848
The Bubble Game: With passions inflamed by the Rothschild financial press, greedy fools get all excited over easy money and rising stock prices. When the money supply is tightened, the bubble inevitably pops and stocks crash. Rothschild then steps in and buys everything up…..And the idiots NEVER figure it out. 
1825 
RUSSIAN CZAR ALEXANDER I DIES MYSTERIOUSLY AS 
ROTHSCHILD TARGETS RUSSIA FOR DESTRUCTION 
After the fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna, the Rothschilds have turned their hateful lust towards the Royal Romanov Family of Russia. The Russian Empire is an up and coming world power, possessing vast territory and resources. Like the young United States of America, Orthodox Christian Russia is also destined for greatness. And also like the USA, it is not under Rothschild's complete control. 

Czar (King) Alexander I had already survived a kidnapping attempt made while he was on his way to a conference in Europe. In 1825, the Czar dies of an unexpected illness, contracted while he was again traveling far away from the safe 62 Capital of St. Petersburg. The death is sudden and mysterious, giving rise to "conspiracy theories." The world-shaking events that will occur over the next 100 years add much credibility to the poisoning theory. Coming events will clearly confirm that the Romanovs and their Empire have been targeted for death by the forces of the New World Order and its controlled gang of Red terrorists. 
Nathan Mayer Rothschild - Wikipedia62 Best Czar Alexander 1 images | Imperial russia, Maria ...
Untitled Document
Nathan Rothschild wants the Romanovs dead and the enormous Russian Empire and its resources under NWO control. Czar Alexander’s death was shrouded in mystery
1832-1835 
CENTRAL BANK BOSS NICHOLAS BIDDLE 
BATTLES WITH ANDREW JACKSON 
The Charter for the Second Bank of the United States is due to expire in 1836. Nicholas Biddle is the President of the privately owned Central Bank. Biddle is an advocate of big government, public (government) education, and centralized banking. 

In 1833, President Andrew Jackson begins his effort to “Kill the Bank” by withdrawing government funds from it and then letting its charter expire without renewal. Jackson hates Biddle’s Bank. He accuses it of causing inflation, creating speculative bubbles, and corrupting the nation’s politics. He is said to have declared to the bankers’: 

“You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out!” (1) 

Biddle then deliberately causes the recession of 1834 by tightening the money supply, leaving debtors short of new currency to repay old loans. Biddle is trying  to intimidate the ex-General and hero of the War of 1812, but the fiery Andrew Jackson is a fearless defender of the common people. Instead of backing down from banker pressure, Jackson turns up the heat. He threatens the bankers and wins the public to his side in "The Bank War". 
Nicholas Biddle | American financier | BritannicaThe Bank War | US History I (AY Collection)
When he didn't get his way, Biddle deliberately damaged the economy. 
Jackson is determined to shut the bankers down and clean them out. 
JANUARY, 1835 
JACKSON PAYS OFF THE ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT – 
THE FIRST & ONLY TIME IN U.S. HISTORY! 
The banking dynasties watch in dismay, as Andrew Jackson becomes the first and only President in US history to pay off the entire national debt. US taxpayers are thus spared the burden of paying bond interest on debt to the Central Bankers. Jackson warns America about the danger of debt: 

“I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.” (2) [the man was spot on DC]

Deprived of the huge profits that Central Banks generate from the debts of big government, the bankers plot the destruction of Andrew Jackson. 
Bank War | United States history | BritannicaTestimonials About PAID | U.S. Department of Labor
Jackson hated debt and mistrusted the New York Bankers. 
JANUARY 30, 
1835 BRITISH AGENT ATTEMPTS 
TO KILL ANDREW JACKSON 
As President Jackson leaves the Capitol following a funeral, a “deranged” man from Britain named Richard Lawrence emerges from behind a column and fires his pistol at Jackson. The gun misfires. Lawrence pulls out a 2nd pistol, which also misfires! Jackson attacks Lawrence with his cane. The would-be assassin is then restrained. 

Lawrence plays the part of a “deranged” lone gunman, but he does suggest that Jackson’s opposition to the Central Bank is what motivated his action, saying that with Jackson dead, “Money will be more plenty.” (3

The assassination attempt on Jackson is the first against an American President who defied the New World Order bankers. Many more attempts against conservative and nationalist Kings, Prime Ministers, and Presidents, carried out by manipulated loner fanatics, are yet to come. 
The Attempted Assassination of Andrew Jackson | History ...Revisited Myth # 44: The position of a horse's legs on an ...
The legend of the General – President Jackson grows stronger by the day. 
1836 
JACKSON WINS! 
THE CENTRAL BANK IS KILLED 
Biddle’s effort to keep the Central Bank alive fails as the charter expires. When asked in later years about what he believed was his greatest accomplishment, Jackson replied: ‘I Killed the Bank.” (4) 

The privately owned bank will go out of business completely in 1841. Biddle is arrested for fraud, but later acquitted. Jackson’s heroism set the NWO bankers' efforts back many years. It will be 77 more years before the fraudulent monster of central banking resurfaces in America under the name: “The Federal Reserve System”.
 King Andrew and the Bank | National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)20 Dollar Bill vs 1oz Silver Coin | Data Driven Investor
1- 1836 Cartoon: Jackson slaying the 'Monster Bank' 
2- Jackson is still hated to this day by America’s Ruling Financial Class 
and their prostitute “historians”. In 2015, a media-hyped effort
to remove Jackson’s image from the $20 bill was launched. 
1844 
WRITER, FUTURE UK PRIME MINISTER USES 
FICTION TO CONFIRM THE ROTHSCHILD CONSPIRACY 
Benjamin Disraeli is a Jewish writer and aspiring politician. He will become Prime Minister of Britain (1868, and 1874) and a dominant player of the 19th century. Long before his rise to power, Disraeli publishes Coningsby: The New 66 Generation. Though fictional, Coningsby is based on British politics (Young England Movement). 

A character named Sidonia represents Lionel de Rothschild (son of Nathan). Sidonia describes to the politician Coningsby how unseen forces - the “Sidonias” foremost among them, shape Europe's affairs. Sidonia reveals his dislike for the Romanovs (Russian Czars): 

"there is no friendship between the Court of St. Petersburg (Russia) and my family." (5) 

Sidonia foretells of the Jewish role in the coming 1848 Revolutions about to engulf Europe. 

"You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate... that mighty revolution of which so little is as yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews." (6)

Sidonia hints of subverting White nations by making the Whites disappear through "race mixing": 

"The fact is you cannot destroy a pure Caucasian race. It is a simple law of nature. The mixed persecuting race disappears, the pure persecuted race (Jews) remains." (7) 

  •  “persecution”’ = opposition to Rothschild 

Sidonia concludes his confession by speaking of the shadow rulers: 

"So you see my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” (8)
Benjamin Disraeli, first Earl of Beaconsfield. British Prime Stock ...Coningsby; | Library of CongressLionel de Rothschild - Wikipedia
Disraeli was very close to the Rothschild Dynasty which made his career. 
In ‘Coningsby’, Disraeli uses fiction to describe the very real power and 
real plans of Lionel de Rothschild (right) and family. 
“The mixed persecuting race disappears.” 

1848 
’SPRING TIME OF THE PEOPLES’; PRE-PLANNED 
REVOLUTIONS AFFECT 50 COUNTRIES 
As foretold by Disraeli, pre-planned uprisings - similar to today’s “color revolutions” - begin in Sicily in January of 1848. Soon after, revolts “spontaneously” break out in 50 states throughout Europe and South America. The rebel Reds and other assorted groups demand “democracy” (mob rule manipulated by the Banking Dynasties / Globalists). 

Although there are legitimate grievances in any nation, and many of the 1848 reformers are sincere people with noble republican visions, the higher purpose of the revolts is not to improve the lives of the people. The true goal is to subvert the authority of existing governments and install "democratic" governments that can be easily controlled by agents working for The New World Order. 

Again, let us reiterate: 

The New World Order refers to a movement among banking, media and academic elites - the legendary Rothschild Family foremost among them - with philosophical roots dating back to the days of the French Revolution. 

The N.W.O. envisions the future establishment of an integrated system of “Global Governance” to be erected upon the ruins of the “Old World Order” - a world based on sovereign and independent nations. 

The controlled revolutions wreak havoc, causing thousands of deaths and leading to political changes in some states. Within a year, the revolutions will have been put down, but the political structure of Europe has now been weakened by the slow poison of "liberalism". Czarist Russia, the hated enemy of the legendary Globalist Rothschild Family, is unaffected by the Red tumult of 1848, but not for long. 
The revolutions of 1848 | School HistoryRevolutions of 1848 - Wikipedia
1848 was a big year for the Globalists and their controlled ‘pro-democracy’ mobs of Communists, republicans and assorted dupes of varying stripes. 1848 
KARL MARX PUBLISHES THE 
‘COMMUNIST MANIFESTO’ 
As well-funded and well-organized revolutionary movements spread across Europe, German-Jewish “philosopher” Karl Marx sets forth the goals of the Communists. For all his lofty talk and empty promises of a “workers’ paradise” and “social justice”, the Communist Manifesto is just an intellectual mask for the Rothschild Family’s Globalist plan to enslave humanity under a New World Order. Marx’s grandparents were actually related to the Rothschild Family, through marriage.[can you read?DC] 

The Communists call for heavy income taxes, a Central Bank with monopoly on credit, abolition of private land ownership and inheritance, state control over communication, education, manufacturing, agriculture, and medicine. Marx refers to this totalitarian scheme as ‘dictatorship of the proletariat (downtrodden masses). 

Marx’s cult followers promote violence, class envy, and hostility towards free markets, family, business, tradition, and Christianity. In addition to the angry misfits, envious losers and maladjusted criminals who worship Marx; there are many well-meaning idealists who fall for Marx’s empty and poisonous promises of a better world with security and prosperity for all. 

These “useful idiots” are known, to this day, as “liberals” or “progressives”. Their thoughtless idealism will unwittingly help the Reds and Globalists greatly. 
Marxism - WikipediaAnimal Farm: George Orwell, Ralph Cosham: 9781433210396: Amazon ...
1 & 2 - The revolutionary philosophy and false promises of Marx & Engels will destabilize Europe for many years to come. 3- George Orwell’s classic, ‘Animal Farm’ is an allegorical expose of what idealistic Communism is really all about. 
1840-1880 
SEVEN ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS 
ON QUEEN VICTORIA 
During the 64 year reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901), (9) the legendary Monarch will survive an astounding seven assassination attempts! Three of these failed efforts against Victoria occurred during the turbulent 1840’s. These attempts, and the many other attempts and murders of European Kings in the  coming years, combine to send a clear and intimidating message to the Monarchs of Europe. 

Were the dark forces of the NWO behind any of the attempts on Queen Victoria? We can only speculate, but it does seem plausible. By the end of her reign, the once powerful Victoria and her heirs will have been reduced to a nostalgic sideshow. The Rothschild New World Order is, to this day, run out of London’s financial district (AKA “The City” of London.) The symbolic British Monarchy survives only because its members know better than to challenge the Globalist-Zionist Bosses in London. 
Queen Victoria - WikipediaVictorian History: To Kill the Queen7 Assassination Attempts on Queen Victoria
Victoria's power is usurped by The House of Rothschild and its agents. 
FEBRUARY, 1853 
ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT MADE AGAINST EMPEROR 
FRANZ JOSEPH OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 
ExecutedToday.com » 1853: János Libényi, who stabbed an emperor ...
The wave of attempted murders of European Monarchs continues with an attempt on Austria-Hungary’s Emperor Franz Joseph. The Emperor survives a stabbing by Hungarian “nationalist” Janos Libenyi, who attacks Franz from behind, stabbing him in the neck. 

In addition to using Reds (Communist & Anarchists), the NWO Mafia will often use mentally unstable “nationalist” tools to carry out suicidal assassination attempts and destabilize multi-national Empires. 

Fortunately for the Emperor, the collar of his uniform is so sturdy that it blunts the effect of the knife. One of the Emperor's officers then strikes down the assassin with his saber, killing him on the spot. Franz Joseph will go on to live a long life. He will still be Emperor when Austria-Hungary, Serbia and Russia are manipulated into World War I following the 1914 assassination of his nephew by a Serbian “nationalist”. 

1853-1856 
ROTHSCHILD, BRITAIN, FRANCE & TURKEY 
WAGE THE CRIMEAN WAR AGAINST RUSSIA 
The Crimean War is fought between Russia, and an alliance of Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). Most of the conflict takes place on the Crimean Peninsula (Black Seal / Ukraine). On the surface, the war is fought for influence over territory, including control of Ottoman ruled Palestine. Russian Czar Nicholas I seeks to avoid war by assuring Britain that its only interest is to protect fellow Orthodox Christians under Ottoman rule. 

But Rothschild's Britain is determined to fight Russia. France will join them. The Rothschild Family finances the British-French war effort against the Czar. (10) After 2& 1/2 years of war, peace negotiations begin in 1856 under Nicholas I's son and successor, Alexander II. Russia and Turkey agree not to establish any naval bases on the Black Sea. The loss of Black Sea ports is disadvantageous for Russia, but she will regain the ports later on. 

The results of the Crimean War foreshadow future events. It is the first direct assault on Russia by the forces of The New World Order. 
Crimean War - WikiwandThe Outcome of the Crimean War - Historic UK
The Crimean War weakens Russia's position. 
1859 
DARWIN'S THEORY OF ‘EVOLUTION’ IS EMBRACED 
BY THE COMMUNISTS AND HYPED UP BY THE PRESS 
When Charles Darwin publishes "The Origins of Species" there is great skepticism over his theory that all life "evolved" from a common ancestor. The untestable, un-observable "theory of evolution" holds that a self-forming, single-cell creature, over a very long time, evolved into a fish - then an amphibian -then into a tree swinging ape - and then into a human being. 

Mistaking observable adaptation for “Evolution”, Darwin predicts that in time, fossil evidence will reveal the billion year progression from ocean scum to swimsuit ‘super model’. After 150 years of digging, this chain of evidence has yet to materialize. 

There are HUGE holes in Darwinism and his works are absolutely riddled with logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks. Yet, from its inception, Darwin has benefited from intense media and academic hype. To even mildly question ”evolution" will get one shouted down as "ignorant" and "uneducated". This alone is evidence of its flaws! 

The cult-like acceptance of Darwinism has done much to destroy faith in a Supreme Creator - and therefore the moral standards that logically derive from such faith. History shows that a people not rooted in moral principles cannot sustain self-government. They will in time degenerate and fall easy prey to tyrants. 

Therefore, the fact that Karl Marx in his 1873 work, "Das Kapital" writes a dedication to Charles Darwin, is not at all surprising: 

"Darwin’s work suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.” (11) 

And nor is that the first and only expression of Communist excitement over Darwinism: 

November 27-30, 1859: Communist icon Friedrich Engels acquires of the very first copies and sends a letter to Marx telling him: 

"Darwin, by the way, whom I'm just reading now, is absolutely splendid". (12) 

December 19, 1860: Marx writes a letter to Engels telling him that Darwin’s book provides the natural-history foundation for the Communist viewpoint: 

“These last four weeks, I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book ….this is the book which contains the basis on natural history for our view." (13) (emphasis added) 

January 16, 1861: Marx writes an excited letter to his Communist friend Ferdinand Lassalle, the founder of the International Socialist movement in Germany: 

“Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.” (14) (emphasis added) 

June 18, 1862: Marx had already re-read Origin of Species, and again writes to Engels: “I am amused at Darwin, into whom I looked again” (15) 

1862: Marx quotes Darwin again within his ‘Theories of Surplus Value’: 

"In his splendid work, Darwin did not realize that by discovering the 'geometrical progression' in the animal and plant kingdom, he overthrew the Malthus theory.” (16) 

German Communist leader Wilhelm Liebknecht later described just how excited the 19th Century Communist leaders all were about the new theory: 

"When Darwin drew the conclusions from his research work and brought them to the knowledge of the public, we spoke of nothing else for months but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries.” (17) (emphasis added)[what tools! Darwin discovered nothing,the total of his theory is speculation,and a weapon of propaganda against the Spirit DC]
Marx-Engels-Denkmal, Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse, Mitte, Berlin ...Karl Liebknecht - Wikipedia
Engels, Marx, and Liebknecht. The Big 3 legends of 19th Century 
Communist subversion were all obsessed with Darwinism. Why? 

Indeed, "evolution" is very good for Globalism. That explains the academic and media hype behind it, as well as why we are not allowed to question it. 

In spite of its scientific flaws - such as the complete lack of fossil evidence for the transitional species, the impossibility of testing the evolution hypothesis, the impossibility of species adding and losing complex chromosomes, the unobservable event of life coming from non-life, the impossibility of DNA codes writing and re-writing new and never seen before sequences, the lack of any plausible explanation for the “evolution” of integrated complexity present in all living organisms, and the simple fact that cross-species evolution has never been observed (only minor adaptation of traits within a species has been observed) - “evolution" is pushed as an indisputable fact and protected by extreme intellectual bullying as well as the force of law.[now think about that, there is all this evidence[mostly time and observation]that  Darwin was nothing more than a snake oil peddler, yet we allow this nonsense to be taught as fact to this very day. Long past the time the scientific community should have condemned  Darwin's polluted mind DC]

The purpose is to destroy man's faith in a Creative Intelligent Designer and the associated higher virtues that logically flow from such knowledge. In the vacuum left by "the death of God", a demoralized and degenerate people ‘worship’ the Government instead. As traditional families and cash strapped churches fade away, the Atheistic state takes over the charitable duties that strong families & churches used to provide.
God vs. Darwin: The Logical Supremacy of Intelligent Design ...
God vs Darwin: The Logical Supremacy of 
Intelligent Design Creationism over Evolution 
What Darwin looked like | Why Evolution Is TrueCindy Crawford Recreates Iconic Super Bowl Ad 26 Years Later ...HQ] Lizard Pictures | Download Free Images & Stock Photos on Unsplash
1- Darwin: Shhhh! You must not question 'Evolution" 2- The insanity of “Evolution” teaches that the lizard and the super-model evolved from the same common spontaneously forming one-cell ancestor. 
1859 
THE TERRORIST JOHN BROWN 
In 1859, the abolitionist-terrorist John Brown attempts to raid a Federal armory in Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. His purpose is to start a violent liberation movement among enslaved Blacks. The effort fails and Brown is tried for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, murder, and inciting a slave insurrection. A few years earlier, Brown and his men had also massacred five White men in Kansas. 

Brown is found guilty on all counts and hanged. Southerners believe that his rebellion is just the tip of the abolitionist iceberg and represented the wishes of the Republican Party to end slavery. The Harpers Ferry raid in 1859 escalates already existing tensions that, a year later, will lead to secession and the Civil War. Had it not been for unreasonable psychopaths like Brown, the South would, in due time, have phased out slavery without bloodshed – as other countries already had done. 
John Brown: America's First Terrorist? | National ArchivesJohn Brown Martyr or Madman? - 7th Grade Student Work
The lunatic John Brown remains a heroic figure for modern day Marxists. 
(Google: John Brown Marxism). 
APRIL, 1861
NORTH VS SOUTH: 
THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR BEGINS 
It might be a bit of an oversimplification to say that New World Order gang engineered the entire Civil War, aka The War Between the States, aka (in the South) The War of Northern Aggression. Regional differences of culture, interest and ideology existed since the founding of the American Republic (recall Hamilton vs Jefferson / Jackson vs Biddle). 

The American system of mercantilism / protectionism profits the North at the expense of the South. The perpetuation of that system is a cause of friction between the two regions. Another factor is that self-righteous New Englanders despise the more libertarian and sometimes less educated citizens of the South. Southerners are aware of this supercilious attitude, which in turn fuels resentment of the “Yankees”. 

However, the playing off of the Northern Central Government against a southern Confederacy dovetails very nicely with how the Globalists have always operated (and continued to operate). The United States is now a commercial power mostly outside of Rothschild control. But those political & cultural differences between the industrial North and the agricultural South have long been an issue of concern. When tensions between the South and the U.S. Federal Government come to a boil, the southern states (Confederacy) begin to secede from the Union. In April of 1861, after provoking a Southern attack against the Feds at Fort Sumter (18), President Lincoln orders an invasion of the South. 

Contrary to pop history, the main issue of the Civil War is not about slavery. 

At most, only about 3% of southerners hold slaves, and four of the Northern states are actually slave-holding states! President Lincoln does indeed oppose slavery, but he will later use the issue only as a propaganda tool to raise moral support for his true goal; saving and strengthening the Union / Federal government. 

INTRIGUERS IN THE NORTH / 
INTRIGUERS IN THE SOUTH 
Apart from those in the North whose sincere desire is to “save the union”; and apart from those in the South whose equally sincere wish is to defend their liberties, there are shady characters maneuvering behind the scenes on both sides – elements without which, the tragic war might never have happened. 

THE NORTH 
In American Jacobins: Revolutionary Radicalism in the Civil War Era, Jordan Lewis Reed of the University of Massachusetts explains: 

“By the late 1830s, this radical edge of the antislavery movement embarked onto two courses, both derived from and influenced by their newfound ideology. The first was towards violent direct action against slavery while the second aimed at legitimizing radical new legal theories and creating the political structure necessary to bring about their enforcement. While on the one hand John Brown and Gerrit Smith pursued militant action, on the other Alvan Stewart and Salmon P. Chase sought a political and legal redefinition of American society through the Liberty and eventually Republican parties. 

With the coming of war in the 1860s, these two trends, violence and radical politics, converged in the Union war effort. In the midst of the Civil War and the early fight for Reconstruction, Radical Republicans and their allies in the Union Army displayed themselves as American Jacobins.” (19

There were also many Jews energetically supporting the Northern cause. August Belmont a known financial agent of the House of Rothschild (20), is foremost among them. Belmont is a German Jew who had changed his name from Schönberg to Belmont. He is a leader of the war faction of the Democrat Party known as ‘War Democrats”. The Belmont Stakes horse race is named after Belmont. 

THE SOUTH 
There is strong Jewish influence supporting the cause of secession as well. Louisiana Senator John Slidell is not Jewish, but his family ties to European Jews run deep. Slidell’s daughter is engaged to Baron Frederic Erlanger, a French Jewish financier based in Paris. Erlanger helps to fund the Confederacy, gouging the South with usurious interest rates and fees too! (21) [of course he did,it's in their damn blood DC]

Erlanger's financing of the South, as confirmed even by today’s New York Times (22), is directly linked to the House of Rothschild. Slidell would later serve the Confederate States government as foreign diplomat to Great Britain and French Emperor Napoleon III. 

Now the niece of the influential Senator Slidell is married to the aforementioned northern financier August Belmont (Schönberg)- Rothschild’s Jewish boy and  Democrat boss supporting the Northern cause. After the war, “Confederate” Slidell will make his “Unionist” nephew-in-law his political protégé. 

Also hooked up with Senator Slidell in this tangled North-South-Rothschild knot of financial-political intrigue is fellow Louisiana Senator Judah Benjamin, the Jewish big-shot who goes on to become the Confederacy’s Attorney General, then Secretary of War, and then Secretary of State. There will be more on Big Benjamin in just a moment. 

Through the shadowy fog of 150 years of elapsed history, we can still discern a clear pattern of divide & conquer, balance of power conspiratorial actions being played upon both sides - and with tragic consequences. 
John Slidell, former Senator for Louisiana - GovTrack.usFrédéric Émile d'Erlanger - Wikipedia
August Belmont | Biography & Facts | BritannicaJudah P. Benjamin - Wikipedia
Senator Slidell – His Jewish Son-in-Law Erlanger – His Jewish Nephew-in-Law Belmont, and Jewish fellow Senator Benjamin form an incestuous North-South connection with direct links (through Erlanger and Belmont) to the House of Rothschild 
General Robert E. Lee is critical 
of politicians on both sides: 
“They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers, resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins.” (23)  
Confederate General Robert E. Lee (1807-1870) - History
Confederate General Robert E Lee  
JULY, 1861 
THE BATTLE OF BULL RUN  
SOUTH WINS THE FIRST BATTLE OF THE WAR, 
BUT FAILS TO FOLLOW-UP WITH THE ‘KNOCK-OUT BLOW’ 
If the South is to have any chance of gaining its independence, it will have to win early, before the more industrialized and populated North can outlast them. The first battle of the war at Bull Run (Manassas, Virginia) is therefore critical. To make a long story short, the rebels force a Union retreat that soon turns into a full rout. The Battle of Bull Run will soon be referred to by some as “The Battle of Yankee Run” (Yankees are the Northerners). 

The Union Capital, Washington DC, is just miles away and now essentially undefended. It is the South’s for the taking. The capture of DC and other parts north would have delivered a huge psychological blow to the North. Because many northerners aren’t in favor of the war anyway; the capture of DC might very well have ended  the war that same year. But instead of finishing the job, someone has decided to save the Capital - a decision that inflames the Southern press and leads to bitter finger-pointing. 

The ‘fall-guy’ for this blunder will be War Secretary Leroy Walker. But in reality, it is the ex-war hero and ex-War Secretary and current Confederate President Jefferson Davis who calls the shots, not the young Walker. But it is also known that Davis relies heavily on the advice from the man whose intelligence and gift-of-gab he was awed by – Jewish Attorney General and former Louisiana Senator Judah Benjamin, referred to by critics as, “Davis’s pet Jew”. (24) 

Was it Judah Benjamin, the man openly admired by Solomon de Rothschild, (25) who may have whispered poison in Davis’s ear, telling him not to take DC and thus blowing the chance to win the game early for the South? And after Walker has been made the scapegoat and fired; who replaces him as War Secretary? None other than Judah Benjamin! 
First Battle of Bull Run - Dates, Location & Who Won - HISTORYLocation of Second Battle of Bull Run (Manassas): Prince William ...
After Bull Run turned into a rout, Washington – just 30 miles away – could have been captured. Whose idea was it to halt? That of Davis --.or Benjamin? 
Could the new War Secretary Benjamin's subsequent 1861 interference with the Generals, - acts so controversial that they would force a Congressional investigation - and his bizarre refusal to supply them as requested have been a ploy designed to prolong the war until the Rothschild's British and French hit-men could arrive to divvy up' America into two spheres? 

Establishment historians will later claim that Benjamin's defiance of the Generals was due to a lack of supplies in the South. But given how early it was in the war, the claim that supplies were low seems like a cover story. If "lack of supplies" had been the cause of Benjamin's decisions, Generals Jackson and Beauregard would not have had reason to dislike Benjamin as they did. 

Such a delaying scenario would fit perfectly with a Rothschild plan to have a long war, one in which both sides could be weakened before the British-French can arrive. 

Let’ take a closer look at the shady Mr. Benjamin.
Stonewall JacksonP.G.T. Beauregard | Confederate States of America Wiki | FandomWe hate you, sir” / The-Ave.US
Generals Jackson, Beauregard and Wise all hated Judah Benjamin. 
1861-1865 
JUDAH BENJAMIN – THE JEWISH INTRIGUER 
BEHIND THE CONFEDERATE ‘THRONE’ 
Outwardly, the esteemed Jefferson Davis is the ‘top dog’ of the South – the President of the Confederate States of America. But behind the scenes, Judah Benjamin, with his European connections and impressive intellect, is, in the grand scheme of things, more powerful than Davis. What the banking agent Alexander Hamilton had been to George Washington, the trusted Benjamin is to Davis, and then some. Like Hamilton, Benjamin was also born a British subject (West Indies). There is simply no exaggerating the significance of Judah Benjamin. 

Biographer Eli Evans wrote that Benjamin: 

“…achieved greater political power than any other Jew in the nineteenth century — perhaps even in all American history.” (26) 

Historian Charles Curran, in a 1967 issue of ‘History Today’ wrote: 

Judah Philip Benjamin must be bracketed with Disraeli, who was his contemporary, as the ablest Jewish politician ever born under the British flag. But his career outdid Disraeli’s in audacity. Benjamin lived three lives in one.” (27) 

Judah was a plantation owner, slave-owner and originally a Senator from Louisiana - as was the aforementioned and equally European-connected John Swindell. Although he has no military experience, Benjamin is named the South’s Secretary of War in 1861, after serving as Attorney General for several months. Many in the South loath and mistrust Benjamin. The great General Stonewall Jackson once threatened to resign over conflicts with Benjamin (28)- who was commonly referred to in the South as “Mr. Davis’s pet Jew”. (29) 

But certain people in Europe had a much higher opinion of Benjamin. In 1861, Salomon de Rothschild - grandson of dynasty founder Mayer Amschel Rothschild - described Benjamin as: “the greatest mind in North America” (30) That pretty much tells us all we need to know about the “southern rebel” Judah Benjamin! 

In 1862, Benjamin is forced to resign as War Secretary. But Davis then appoints him as the South’s Secretary of State. In this position, Benjamin will work with Swindell and Swindell’s French Jewish son-in-Law Erlanger to secure not just financing from the Rothschild syndicate, but also to induce the direct involvement of Rothschild’s Britain & France into the war, on the side of the South. 
T-43 Confederate Money 2.00 Judah P. Benjamin Very Good Plus ...JUDAH BENJAMIN: THE BIG JEW OF THE CONFEDERACY
Judah Benjamin’s face appeared on Confederate currency and bonds! 
NOVEMBER, 1862 
LINCOLN FIRES GENERAL McCLELLAN 
FOR HIS REPEATED DELAYING TACTICS 
General George B. McClellan ably built the Union Army in the early stages of the war and achieved some early successes. But by 1862, McClellan’s campaigns became notorious for timidity and sluggishness. Just like the Judah Benjamin’s Confederate Army passed up a golden opportunity to capture the Union Capital (Washington DC) in 1861, McClellan was poised to take the Confederate Capital (Richmond, Virginia) in 1862 – but chose to retreat to a smaller-numbered force. 

After the Robert E. Lee defeated the Union at Second Battle of Bull Run in late August, 1862, he invaded Maryland. With the Confederates crashing into Union territory, Lincoln had no choice but to turn to McClellan to stop Lee. 

McClellan and Lee battled to a standstill along Antietam Creek near Sharpsburg, Maryland. Lee retreated back to Virginia and McClellan ignored Lincoln’s urging to pursue him. For six weeks, Lincoln and McClellan exchanged angry messages, but McClellan stubbornly refused to march after Lee. 

In late October, McClellan finally began moving across the Potomac in feeble pursuit of Lee, but he took nine days to complete the crossing. Lincoln had seen enough. Lincoln finally removed McClellan and named General Ambrose Burnside to be the commander of the Army of the Potomac. 

A picture now emerges of players on both sides of the conflict refusing to press advantages that could end the war early. We have already reviewed the intrigues of Judah Benjamin and his links to the Rothschild gang. Is there a Rothschild player that we can connect McClellan too? There is. 

Two years after his removal, at a time when the Union is winning the war, McClellan will be named as the Democrat Presidential candidate to run against Lincoln in 1864. The chairman of the Democrat Party, and enthusiastic supporter of McClellan, is none other than Rothschild Jewish boy with the adopted English name – August Belmont; the nephew-in-law of Louisiana Senator and Judah Benjamin crony, John Slidell.

McClellan-Belmont-Slidell-Erlanger-Benjamin--Rothschild. 

The North-South circular game is clear now. Neither side was supposed to win the War Between the States, at least not too soon. Both sides were meant to be bled before losing to the New World Order.  
George B. McClellan - WikipediaA cartoon entitled 'The Gunboat Candidate' poking fun at George ...
The Northern Press mocked McClellan’s unwillingness to fight in numerous stories and cartoons. His past refusal to engage became an issue when he ran for President in 1864. 
1861-1865 
THE UNION DEFIES THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD 
AND PRINTS ITS OWN ‘GREENBACK’ CURRENCY 
Lincoln needs money to fund the war. He is extorted by the New York bankers, who want the Union to sell high interest bonds to them (20%!), which they can resell to the banking syndicate in London. 

Lincoln thwarts the bankers by issuing unbacked currency directly from the Treasury. The currency comes to be known as Greenbacks. The effect is inflationary, but it does prevent the Union from having to crawl to the New York/London syndicate. 
Greenback (1860s money) - WikipediaGreenback (1860s money) - Wikipedia
Printing your own national currency is 
forbidden by The New World Order 
JULY 1-3, 1863 
THE NORTH WINS THE 
BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG 
The Battle of Gettysburg is fought in and around the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The battle involves the largest number of casualties of the entire war and will mark the turning point of the Civil War – in the North’s favor. 

After his success in Virginia in May 1863, Gen. Robert E. Lee leads his army through the Shenandoah Valley to begin the invasion of the North. With his army in high spirits, Lee intends to shift the focus of the war away from northern Virginia. The goal is to influence Northern politicians to stop the war by penetrating as far North as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, or even Philadelphia. 

After a grueling tussle back and forth, the Union Army beats back attacks by the Confederates and ends Lee's attempt to invade the North. For a three-day battle, the final casualty numbers are horrific. 

North: 3,150 / Killed / 14,500 Wounded 
South: 4,700 / Killed / 13,000 Wounded (31) 
Battle of Gettysburg - Turning Point in the Civil War
Brother killing brother with Rothschild agents involved in both ends.
JULY, 1863 
DEADLY ANTI-DRAFT RIOTS 
IN NEW YORK CITY 
Increasing support for the abolitionists and for emancipation of southern slaves led to anxiety among New York's Irish. From the time of Lincoln's election in 1860, 87 the Democratic Party had warned New York's Irish and German residents to prepare for the emancipation of slaves and the resultant labor competition when southern blacks came north. To these New Yorkers, the Emancipation Proclamation was confirmation of their worst fears. 

In March 1863, fuel was added to the fire in the form of a strict federal draft law. All male citizens between twenty and thirty-five and all unmarried men between thirty-five and forty-five were subject to military duty. The federal government entered all eligible men into a lottery. Those who could afford to hire a substitute or pay the government three hundred dollars might avoid enlistment. Blacks, who were not considered citizens, were exempt from the draft. 

Initially intended to express anger at the draft, draft protests turned into a 4-day riot, with white Irish immigrants attacking blacks wherever they could find them. The military did not reach the city until after the first day of rioting, when mobs had already destroyed numerous government buildings, two Protestant churches, the homes of abolitionists, many black homes, and a Colored Orphan Asylum, which was burned to the ground. Lincoln had to divert 4,000 troops to control the city. 

The official final death toll was listed at 119, with 2000 injured. Pro-Union newspapers later allege that some of the leaders of the riots were funded by foreign interests seeking to split the country. (32)
New York City draft riots - WikipediaNew York City draft riots - WikipediaOn This Day: 1863, The New York City Draft Riots - Tenement Museum
Irish New Yorkers fight the Federal Army. 
1863 
LINCOLN AND SECRETARY OF STATE SEWARD 
TURN TO RUSSIAN CZAR ALEXANDER I FOR HELP 
A joint British & French entry into the war would have tipped the scales in favor of the South, and ultimately led to two American nations. Lincoln and his Secretary of State, William Seward block the scheme of Judah Benjamin by turning to Russia.

In a clear message to his old Rothschild-funded foes from the Crimean War, Czar Alexander II stations the better part of his Pacific fleet in San Francisco, and a portion of his western fleet in New York. The British & French instigators of the Crimean War get the message and are forced to back off. Judah Benjamin and the Rothschild financiers are thwarted. Together, Alex and Abe have defied the London Bankers, and will both pay a heavy price for it, as we shall see. 

After the war, in recognition of, or payback for, Russia’s help in keeping Britain & France out of the war; Seward will arrange for the purchase of Alaska from Russia after the war – an act dismissed at the time as “Seward’s Folly”. But now we know the reason for the “folly”. 
Amazon.com: The Tsar and the President: Alexander II and Abraham ...What role did Russia play in the U.S. Civil War? - Russia Beyond
How The Russian Navy Saved The Union In The Civil War - KnowledgeNuts
1 & 2 - The Czar and the President / UK cartoon mocks both Lincoln and Alexander 
3 - The presence of the Russian Navy during the U.S. Civil War sent a 
strong message to Rothschild Britain & France. 
OCTOBER, 1864 
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE ACCUSES AUGUST BELMONT A
ND THE ROTHSCHILDS OF PLOTTING AGAINST THE UNION 
On 16 October 1864 on page 2, The Chicago Tribune reported, 

"BELMONT'S CONFEDERATE BONDS (Excerpts) 

“It is perhaps somewhat flattering to our national pride to know that the Rothschilds, who hold up every despotism in Europe, have concluded that it would be cheaper to buy up one of our political parties (Democrats), and in that way secure the dissolution of the Union, than to have their agents in England and France interfere and fight us. 

But Irishmen and Germans have a something, which for brevity we will call a 'crop,' and this fact sticks in their crop, that the oppressors of Ireland and Germany, the money kings of Europe, not daring to carry out their first pet project of breaking down this Government by the armed intervention, of England and France, 

Let Belmont state over his own signature, if he can that he and Rothschild's have not, directly or indirectly, in their own name, or in that of others, operated in Confederate stocks during this rebellion. Until he can face the music in that style it matters little what tune any of the Copperhead penny whistles may be authorized to blow, as they are very seldom authorized to state anything that is true." (33) 

APRIL 9, 1865 
GENERAL LEE SURRENDERS / 
SOUTHERN WAR EFFORT BEGINS COLLAPSING 
With the loss of the Battle at Appomattox Courthouse, General Lee accepts surrender terms. There will be isolated fighting for a few weeks, but in essence, the game is over at this point. True Southerners had fought bravely for "Dixieland" against what they saw as a central government that was usurping the rights of the states. In the end, Northern manpower, industry, and quite frankly, the brutality of Generals such as Sherman and Sheridan gave the Union an advantage which could not be overcome. 

The Union is preserved, at a cost of 600,000 dead. Though the differences between the North and South were very real; the bloodbath need not ever have happened. Issues such as States’ Rights, slavery, tariffs etc. could all have been worked out intelligently and peacefully by wise men of good faith on both sides. 

America has the John Brown's, John Slidell's, Judah Benjamins, August Belmonts and other assorted dupes and traitors on both sides to thank for the disaster. And above those puppet-players stood the ‘usual suspects’ - the House of Rothschild. 
April 9, 1865: General Robert E. Lee surrenders | History 101Stories - The Civil War (U.S. National Park Service)
General Robert E. Lee surrenders to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House in Virginia. A sad story for both sides.
 
APRIL 14, 
1865 LINCOLN IS KILLED / SECRETARY OF 
STATE SEWARD STABBED IN HIS HOME 
In the closing days of the American Civil War, a massive conspiracy to decapitate the U.S. government results in the assassination of President Lincoln by an actor with ties to secret societies. John Wilkes Booth shoots Lincoln in the back of the head as Lincoln and his wife watch a play at Ford’s Theatre. Booth escapes. 

On the same night of Lincoln’s murder, Lewis Powell, an associate of Booth, attacks Secretary of State William Seward in his home. Seward is stabbed in the face and neck before other men in the house subdue Powell. Seward’s wife Frances dies two months later from stress caused by seeing her husband nearly killed. 

Vice President Johnson and General Ulysses S Grant were also to have been killed.  The “conspiracy theorists” of the day point the finger at Judah Benjamin, who burns the official papers of the Confederate Secret Service right about this time. (34) Thanks to Bennie the Burner, the full story of Confederate clandestine services, and most likely the Lincoln assassination, may never be known. 
Abraham Lincoln Assassination: The Forgotten Full StoryInvestigating the Assassination | Fords Theatre
Lincoln was shot from behind as he sat next to his wife. Hours later, Secretary of State Seward is nearly stabbed to death in his home. 
APRIL 26, 1865 
DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES! / 
LINCOLN’S ASSASSIN IS ALSO ASSASSINATED 
John Wilkes Booth is tracked down by troops nearly two weeks later. The soldiers set fire to a barn that Booth is hiding in. Instead of taking him alive, Sergeant Boston Corbett shoots Booth in the head as he moves about in the barn. Booth’s secrets die with him. 
John Wilkes Booth - Death, Siblings & Facts - Biography