In a post a few months ago, I wrote the following:
Should Hillary Clinton win the presidency, I suspect a war with Russia will become a foregone conclusion. Hillary’s comparison of Putin to Hitler is not the only reason I say this. Her personality is the other reason.
Mrs. Clinton strikes me as someone who could easily be manipulated by the Zionists in the State Department, much more so than Donald Trump. The latter, for all his shameless pandering to AIPAC, is probably less likely to be finagled or cajoled into a war with Russia than Clinton. “America is a thing you can move very easily.” So said Benjamin Netanyahu famously in 2001. A Hillary Clinton presidency, should such come to pass, could well see those words borne out more precariously and dangerously than under any previous predecessor in the White House.
At the time I wrote those words, I was not aware of a speech Clinton gave before the Council on Foreign Relations back in 2009. Only in the past few days did I stumble, sort of by chance, upon brief mention of it. An excerpt from that speech is shown in the video below, and the words you hear Clinton speak are rather striking, for they seem to bear out what I was saying about her personality traits.
The person Clinton refers to as “Richard” is presumably CFR President Richard Haas who is Jewish. In 2003, Haas justified the war in Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Ten years later, in 2013, he called for the US to mount a “strong response” to the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons (an incident in which chemical weapons were indeed used, but not by the Syrian government).
The CFR is not a US government agency. It is a private think tank. Other top figures in addition to Haas are Carla Hills, co-chairman of the board; Robert Rubin, co-chairman of the board; and Richard Saloman, vice-chairman.
In 2009, Haas gave an interview with NPR in which he insisted he had been opposed to the Iraq War. However, you can go here to see an appearance on the Charlie Rose show in September of 2003 in which he was singing a very different tune, speaking very much as a proponent of the war and even commenting at one point that the US had waged the war “so cleanly that most of the Iraqi people actually escaped much suffering.”
(Ominously, Haas is also said to have given foreign policy advice to Donald Trump much more recently.)
But again, back to Hillary’s words:
“This will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
Clinton is not of course saying that she takes orders from the CFR–but she is clearly stating that she follows their advice quite a bit, which can be almost the same thing when interpersonal relationships take on certain dynamics–say for instance when one party in the relationship is dominant by nature and the other submissive, or, possibly, when one is perceived as having a higher level of judgement, acumen, or understanding of a topic. In such relational interplay “advice” can sometimes become tantamount to an “order.”
And if that’s not enough to raise a red flag for anyone thinking of voting for Hillary, there are also recorded instances of Clinton having what appear to be spasms or mini-seizures on camera, including recently at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Go to YouTube, do a search for “Hillary seizures,” and you will turn up a number of videos on the subject, each showing what appear to be muscular convulsions–convulsions of a brief duration, but certainly a bit bizarre or peculiar looking.
Whether Trump has seen the same videos, I do not know, but at a campaign rally in New Hampshire this past Saturday, he cautioned–while pointing to his head–on the danger of a US president who might be inclined to “short circuit up here.”
There is also a photo of Clinton, which I believe was taken at the convention, and which shows what appears to be a hole in her tongue:
Some have speculated that the hole is a possible sign of throat cancer. Others have postulated venereal disease of some kind.
Regardless of what the health issues may be–and I’m not a medical expert, so I’m not going to offer any speculation of my own on them–the danger exists that Clinton as president “could be easily manipulated,” as I said in my previous post.
Yesterday, I put up a post about what appears to be a “re-branding” of the terrorist group Jabhat Al-Nusra. Presently we are seeing the media once again accusing the Syrian government of dropping “barrel bombs” on hospitals and killing civilians, with some media outlets, this one for instance, even portraying the terrorists as “heroes.”
Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that a Zionist foreign policy advisor offers the following “advice” to the next US president:
“America needs to move quickly to counter Russian aggression in Syria. We need to mobilize NATO forces for an immediate attack on Damascus as well as the Russian Naval base at Tartus.”
Of the two, who do you think would be most likely to comply, Donald Trump? Or Hillary Clinton?