Pentagon Concludes America Not Safe Unless It Conquers The World

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

The Pentagon has released its “National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2015,” June 2015.

The document announces a shift in focus from terrorists to “state actors” that “are challenging international norms.” It is important to understand what these words mean. Governments that challenge international norms are sovereign countries that pursue policies independently of Washington’s policies. These “revisionist states” are threats, not because they plan to attack the US, which the Pentagon admits neither Russia nor China intend, but because they are independent. In other words, the norm is dependence on Washington.

Be sure to grasp the point: The threat is the existence of sovereign states, whose independence of action makes them “revisionist states.” In other words, their independence is out of step with the neoconservative Uni-power doctrine that declares independence to be the right of Washington alone. Washington’s History-given hegemony precludes any other country being independent in its actions.

The Pentagon’s report defines the foremost “revisionist states” as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. The focus is primarily on Russia. Washington hopes to co-op China, despite the “tension to the Asia-Pacific region” that China’s defense of its sphere of influence, a defense “inconsistent with international law” (this from Washington, the great violator of international law), by turning over what remains of the American consumer market to China. It is not yet certain that Iran has escaped the fate that Washington imposed on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Ukraine, and by complicity Palestine.

The Pentagon report is sufficiently audacious in its hypocrisy, as all statements from Washington are, to declare that Washington and its vassals “support the established institutions and processes dedicated to preventing conflict, respecting sovereignty, and furthering human rights.” This from the military of a government that has invaded, bombed, and overthrown 11 governments since the Clinton regime and is currently working to overthrow governments in Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, and Argentina.

In the Pentagon document, Russia is under fire for not acting “in accordance with international norms,” which means Russia is not following Washington’s leadership.

In other words, this is a bullshit report written by neocons in order to foment war with Russia.

Nothing else can be said about the Pentagon report, which justifies war and more war. Without war and conquests, Americans are not safe.

Washington’s view toward Russia is the same as Cato the Elder’s view toward Carthage. Cato the Elder finished his every speech on any subject in the Roman Senate with the statement “Carthage must be destroyed.”

This report tells us that war with Russia is our future unless Russia agrees to become a vassal state like every country in Europe, and Canada, Australia, Ukraine, and Japan. Otherwise, the neoconservatives have decided that it is impossible for Americans to tolerate living with a country that makes decisions independently of Washington. If America cannot be The Uni-Power dictating to the world, better that we are all dead. At least that will show the Russians.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ebworthen's picture

Dr. Strangelove becomes reality.

Little Doll's picture

My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

This is what I do...

Ralph Spoilsport's picture

That's back when people read Playboy for the articles.

TeamDepends's picture

"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

wee-weed up's picture

Classic case of when all you've got is a hammer... everything looks like a nail.

Bollixed's picture

"North Korea also has conducted cyber attacks, including causing major damage to a U.S. corporation."

Sony Corp. A movie. A bad movie. A PR stunt.

These fuckers will use any excuse to grow their power even if it's made-up bullshit.


Manthong's picture

They need to change the name of the Department of Defense back to what it was before 1947:

The Department of War

Skateboarder's picture

You mean "The Department of Peace"...

gmrpeabody's picture

Are you sure it's not the neo-liberals..., too funny.

jeff montanye's picture

(from wiki) Neoliberalism[1] is a term whose usage and definition have changed over time.[2]

Since the 1980s, the term has been used primarily by scholars and critics in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, whose advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[3] The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 one of the ultimate results


Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s. Many of its adherents rose to political fame during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administrations of George W. Bush, George H W Bush and Tony Blair, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the Bush administration included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer.


The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism.[2][not in citation given] Neoconservatives frequently advocate the promotion of democracy and promotion of American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[3][4] Many early neoconservative thinkers were Jewish and published articles in Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee.[5][6] They spoke out against the New Left, and in that way helped define the movement.[7][8] C. Bradley Thompson, a professor at Clemson University, claims that most influential neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899–1973),[9] though in doing so they may draw upon meaning that Strauss himself did not endorse.

0b1knob's picture

Russia is under fire for not acting “in accordance with international norms,”

You would think Russia had invaded a neighboring country and annexed part of it. 

Oh wait....

Aaaarghh's picture

Tylerrs...please have a depth limit on comments of five or so, when it gets like this, its unreadable!

Headbanger's picture


Oh the humanity!


weburke's picture

of course, p.r. is a slave of the elites, but we have yet to see if the whole eu/bric/imf thing is a head fake and it is truly the old rome USAdollar with isreal crushing the rest. 

Manthong's picture


Just hold the "control(Ctrl)" key down and mouse wheel  or + /- to expand or contract the window contents and you can read everything just fine.

edit.. gee, I guess some schmuck out there is vexed by his computer.


zee9876's picture

Jesus's mum wore a rag...Was she a rag head also??

Manthong's picture

Crimea was Russian in 1776

Crimea was Russian in 1876

Crimea was Russian in 1956.. Still Russian, but Khrushchev handed it over to Ukraine for administration because he was Ukrainian and there was no foreseeing the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Still Russian after the breakup, but Yeltsin the lush left it in the hands of the Ukrainians and agreed pay lease money to Kiev.

In the aftermath of the Nuland coup of 2014, the Russians in Crimea immediately voted themselves out of Ukraine (albeit with a little help from Moscow) and Russia was quick to absorb it.

Nuland and her Obama Neocon cronies were abject idiots to think they were ever going to take control of Sevastopol away from Moscow.

The nukes would be  a’ flying before that would ever happen.

Ofelas's picture

Crimea was Turkish before that, so....

Grumbleduke's picture

it was "turkish" alright, for hunting slaves for the sultan. The word "slave" is derived from that time...

Manthong's picture

Not at all totally Turkish  (purposeful alliteration)

The Crimean Tatars were also a mix of Greek, Armenian, Mongol and others. They largely stayed in Crimea well after Catherine the Great took Crimea from the Ottoman Turks and until Stalin removed most of them and shipped them out, mostly to Uzbekistan.

(I was off a few years in my above statement; she actually took Crimea in 1783)

The history of Crimea makes for some fascinating reading.

gezley's picture

One-third of the United States landmass was Mexican when Crimea was Turkish. Then the WASP criminals showed up and stole it.

snodgrass's picture

The Mexicans lost. The Southwest has fared much better under WASPs than it ever did under the stupid Mexicans.

BlowsAgainsttheEmpire's picture

I don't think most Native Americans in the SW would agree with your statement.  After looking at, say, Phoenix, I don't either.

Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

You gotta love ignorant Aussies. Those who worship the ANZACS, and who have swallowed the anti Russia propaganda that russia has no right to the Crimea.

I love to tell them to go back to our history books - the Crimean war was the first international war we ever sent a contingent to. And we were off to invade who? the Russians. To stop the russians from what? From pwning the Ottoman Turks. Who we would so pointlessly engage at Gallipoli

Arnold's picture

Geronimo was your walmart looking kinda guy.

Still respected , though.


My same train of thought as with the Confederate Battle Flag.

Walmart kinda people who deserve respect for achievement.



JR's picture

“Near the end of the 16th century the northern frontier of New Spain in most areas was close to the present Mexican-United States boundary line.

Under the Spanish colonization of the United States, the period of Mexican independence was short, from 1821 to 1846 when the California republic was proclaimed. Population of California in 1847 was 85,000.

Jose Joaquin de Arrillaga was the first Spanish governor of California (1804-1814); Pablo Vicente de Sola was the last Spanish governor (1815-1822). The first Mexican governor of California was Luis Antonio Arguello (1822-25) and the last Mexican governor was Pio de Jesus Pico IV (1845-46..

“Mexico remained part of the Spanish empire until the establishment of independence in 1821. Along with neighboring regions, it was officially known as New Spain.” -- Encyclopedia Britannica Colonial Period  1519-1821

X_Weatherman's picture

In the "New Wrold" the Spanish were also murderous thieves.

snodgrass's picture

Just like the Aztecs who were cannibals.

Manthong's picture

Thankfully, Zorro was on the scene to vex that nasty governor and the affable Sgt. Garcia.

Just like porn-Hogan vexed the irascible Col. Klink and the affable Sgt. Shultz.

cheech_wizard's picture

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. You'd think even the most cursory glance at history would show the truth in this statement. Thanks and a tip of the cap to Chairman Mao for ponting out the obvious to the less astute.

Standard reductio ad absurdum:

How far back do you want to go? Personally, the dinosaurs are owed reperations big time. 

Dancing Disraeli's picture

A handful of Mexicans on a huge landmass, mostly living in fear of the Comanche and Apache, who gleefully tortured to death any they could lay their hands on.  Learn a little history.

Dancing Disraeli's picture

In fact, my Chicana wife's Mexican ancestors were run out of what is now New Mexico by these marauding Indian tribes.  Took the determined gringos to finally bring them to heel.  Sorry, but facts are facts and we may as well face 'em.

geno-econ's picture

After WWII Stalin was willing to designate Crimea as the new Jewish State under Soviet influence. Instead Churchill and FDR decided the new Jewidh State would be Palastine under US influence.  Google "Crimea as Jewish State". Now it seems Neocons want both Israel and Ukraine, including Crimea, as expanded Jewish State because Israel is demographically doomed even with expanded settlrments.  Another WW is brewing especially with natural resources of off shore oil and gas as the prize.

Manthong's picture

Thanks for that tidbit of crucial geopolitical knowledge.

But the Cubs will have to win the World Series and Hell will freeze over before they will be able to take Crimea from the Russians.

Unfortunately, everything would be buried in radioactive ash when that time comes.


All you need to know about why Ukraine is a war torn basket case right now is contained in this December 2013 presentation by Vickie “Chevron” Nuland.

Hey  Vickie, next trip over there, say hi to Hunter “the Nose” Biden for us.

And oh, BTW, for those who have not been keeping up…  Monsanto, Cargill and ADM have GMO dibs on the center of Ukraine after they clear the unexploded rounds out.

Ill-news the Stormcrow's picture

Yeah, they should be invading countries half a world away, like true proponents of world peace.

Nexus789's picture

You would have thought that Russia had invaded multiple countries and bombed the crap out of them.

OldPhart's picture

You've been here about as long as I have.  What are you saying?!

If you have any sort of actual, realistic, curiosity of what has been going on you would have a firm grasp of history and an awesome appreciation of the wealth of real world knowledge exhibited by Zero Hedge commentors.

You would have checked links, obscure references, monitored vague web-sites from around the world...

Oh, I get forgot the /sarc tag.

Ok, ok...shit, man, you had me going for a bit!

joe6px's picture

If they did so what? Russia is acting to protect it's regional influence.  Google the Monroe doctrine then try to comment with just a hint of honesty.

Jack Burton's picture

Crimea voted for independence twice in the 90's. It was never part of Ukraine, it was given to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine by a Communist dictator from Ukraine. Clearly illegal under Soviet law. Kiev attempted to keep Crimea even though the people voted twice to leave. Sending troops to secure their conquest. In fact, Crimea liberated itself, and then voted to join Russia, it's parent state for hundreds of years. These fake Americans who say Russia invaded Crimea, is like America invading Florida,

The Delicate Genius's picture
The Delicate Genius (not verified) 0b1knob Jul 11, 2015 2:26 PM

Crimeans Keep Saying No to Ukraine

Consistently, over the past year, polls conducted by major Western firms have revealed that the people of Crimea by overwhelming numbers prefer being part of Russia over Ukraine, an embarrassing reality that Forbes business magazine has now acknowledged.

An article by Kenneth Rapoza, a Forbes specialist on developing markets, cited these polls as showing that the Crimeans do not want the United States and the European Union to force them back into an unhappy marriage with Ukraine. “The Crimeans are happy right where they are” with Russia, Rapoza wrote.

“One year after the annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula in the Black Sea, poll after poll shows that the locals there — be they Ukrainians, ethnic Russians or Tartars are all in agreement: life with Russia is better than life with Ukraine,” he wrote, adding that “the bulk of humanity living on the Black Sea peninsula believe the referendum to secede from Ukraine was legit.”

Rapoza noted that a June 2014 Gallup poll, which was sponsored by the U.S. government’s Broadcasting Board of Governors, found that 82.8 percent of Crimeans said the March 16 referendum on secession reflected the views of the Crimean people. In the poll, when asked if joining Russia would improve their lives, 73.9 percent said yes and only 5.5 percent said no.

A February 2015 poll by German polling firm GfK found similar results. When Crimeans were asked “do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea,” 93 percent gave a positive response, with 82 percent saying, “yes, definitely.” Only 2 percent said no, with the remainder unsure or not answering.

In other words, the West’s insistence that Russia must return Crimea to Ukraine would mean violating the age-old U.S. principle of a people’s right of self-determination. It would force the largely ethnic Russian population of Crimea to submit to a Ukrainian government that many Crimeans view as illegitimate, the result of a violent U.S.-backed coup on Feb. 22, 2014, that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych.

The coup touched off a brutal civil war in which the right-wing regime in Kiev dispatched neo-Nazi and other extremist militias to spearhead a fierce “anti-terrorism operation” against resistance from the ethnic Russian population in the east, which – like Crimea – had supported Yanukovych. More than 6,000 Ukrainians, most of them ethnic Russians, have been killed in the fighting.

Despite this reality, the mainstream U.S. news media has misreported the crisis and distorted the facts to conform to U.S. State Department propaganda. Thus, many Americans believe the false narrative about Russian troops crushing the popular will of the Crimean people, much as the U.S. public was misled about the Iraq situation in 2002-03 by many of the same news outlets.

Or, as Forbes’ Rapoza put it: “At some point, the West will have to recognize Crimea’s right to self rule. Unless we are all to believe that the locals polled by Gallup and GfK were done so with FSB bogey men standing by with guns in their hands.” The FSB is a Russian intelligence agency.

The GfK survey also found that Crimeans considered the Ukrainian media, which has been wildly anti-Russian, unreliable. Only 1 percent said the Ukrainian media “provides entirely truthful information” and only 4 percent said it was “more often truthful than deceitful.”

So, the people at the frontline of this conflict, where Assistant Secretary Nuland, detected a “reign of terror,” say they are not only satisfied with being restored to Russia, which controlled Crimea since the 1700s, but don’t trust the distorted version of events that they see on Ukrainian TV.

Practical Reasons

Some of the reasons for the Crimean attitudes are simply pragmatic. Russian pensions were three times larger than what the Ukrainian government paid – and now the Ukrainian pensions are being slashed further in compliance with austerity demands from the International Monetary Fund.

This month, Nuland boasted about those pension cuts in praising the Kiev regime’s steps toward becoming a “free-market state.” She also hailed “reforms” that will force Ukrainians to work harder and into old age and that slashed gas subsidies which helped the poor pay their heating bills.

Last year, the New York Times and other U.S. news outlets also tossed around the word “invasion” quite promiscuously in discussing Crimea. But you may recall that you saw no images of Russian tanks crashing into the Crimean peninsula or an amphibious landing or paratroops descending from the skies. The reason was simple: Russian troops were already in Crimea.

The Russians had a lease agreement with Ukraine permitting up to 25,000 military personnel in Crimea to protect the Russian naval base at Sevastopol. About 16,000 Russian troops were on the ground when the Feb. 22, 2014 putsch occurred in Kiev – and after a crisis meeting at the Kremlin, they were dispatched to prevent the coup regime from imposing its control on Crimea’s people.

That Russian intervention set the stage for the March 16 referendum in which the voters of Crimea turned out in large numbers and voted overwhelmingly for secession from Ukraine and reintegration with Russia, a move that the Russian parliament and President Putin then approved.

Yet, as another part of its false reporting, the New York Times claimed that Putin denied that Russian troops had operated inside Crimea – when, in fact, he was quite open about it. For instance, on March 4, 2014, almost two weeks before the referendum, Putin discussed at a Moscow press conference the role of Russian troops in preventing the violence from spreading from Kiev to Crimea. Putin said:

“You should note that, thank God, not a single gunshot has been fired there. … Thus the tension in Crimea that was linked to the possibility of using our Armed Forces simply died down and there was no need to use them. The only thing we had to do, and we did it, was to enhance the defense of our military facilities because they were constantly receiving threats and we were aware of the armed nationalists moving in. We did this, it was the right thing to do and very timely.”

Two days after the referendum, which recorded the 96 percent vote in favor of seceding from Ukraine and rejoining Russia, Putin returned to the issue of Russian involvement in Crimea. In a formal speech to the Russian Federation, Putin justified Crimea’s desire to escape the grasp of the coup regime in Kiev, saying:

“Those who opposed the [Feb. 22] coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives, in preventing the events that were unfolding and are still underway in Kiev, Donetsk, Kharkov and other Ukrainian cities.

“Naturally, we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress. This would have been betrayal on our part.”

But to make it appear that Putin was denying a military intervention, the Times and other U.S. news outlets truncated Putin’s statement when he said, “Russia’s Armed Forces never entered Crimea.” The Western press stopped there, ignoring what he said next: “they were there already in line with an international agreement.”

Putin’s point was that Russian troops based in Crimea took actions that diffused a possibly violent situation and gave the people of Crimea a chance to express their wishes through the ballot. But that version of events didn’t fit with the desired narrative pushed by the U.S. State Department and the New York Times. So the problem was solved by misrepresenting what Putin said.

But the larger issue now is whether the Obama administration and the European Union will insist on forcing the Crimean people – against their will – to rejoin Ukraine, a country that is rapidly sliding into the status of a failed state and a remarkably cruel one at that.

Manthong's picture

“But the larger issue now is whether the Obama administration and the European Union will insist on forcing the Crimean people – against their will – to rejoin Ukraine”

It’s not an issue at all. The Obama Neocons and the European Technocrats might consider insisting, cajoling, threatening, pleading and even howling at the moon, but Crimea and Sevastopol will not be given up by Moscow and they know it.

Y’know, Putin and company had to be laughing their asses off after Chevron Vickie and her crew damn well near handed Crimea back to Russia through their moronic bungling of the Ukraine issue.

You have to feel very sorry for the people of Donbass though because of the arrogant U.S. hegemonic foreign policy that has killed many of them and made their lives hell.

It's just a good thing we have not done that anywhere else.

Oh, and a tip of the hat to John McCain for his role in this debacle.


Manthong's picture

“Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administrations of George W. Bush, George H W Bush and Tony Blair,”

Boy, does that Wiki need to be edited.

Victoria Nuland, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Dunford, Deborah Lee James and others in King Hussein’s regime make most of the Bush Neocons look like Timothy Leary.

IronForge's picture

They just own both parties by the short hairs...

Seek_Truth's picture

"They" (TPTB) always have:


U.S. President Andrew Jackson, because of massive fraud and corruption, was determined not to renew the U.S. Bank’s charter when it expired in 1836. Fighting the British was child's play compared to fighting the moneychangers. His main opponent was Nicholas Biddle who was president of the Second Bank.

“Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on the congress...Our only safety is pursuing a course of steady restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and a recharter of the bank.” - Nicholas Biddle.

Biddle was the Banker’s agent in America, and her best brain. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania at the age of 13 and from Princeton at 17. He mastered the secret science of paper money and banking at an early age. He was head of the 2nd Bank of the U.S. With many Congressmen and Senators financially beholden to him, he wielded great political power. He deliberately created a banking panic and a depression for the purpose of frightening the voters and blaming it on President Jackson. Biddle was later arrested and charged with fraud but his powerful protectors shielded him from justice.

President Jackson's unflinching determination and unwavering patriotism prevailed against Biddle and his Bank.  President Jackson called the Bank a monster and was determined to pull all its teeth. He said:

"I am ready with the screws to draw every tooth and then the stumps."

And Jackson did exactly as he promised. When he left office, the U.S. had a real currency consisting of silver and gold coins. President Jackson called paper money "RAG MONEY" and this is what he said about it:

"The paper-money system and its natural associations—monopoly and exclusive privileges—have already struck their roots too deep in the soil, and it will require all your efforts to check its further growth and to eradicate the evil."

What was the result of Jackson’s stance?

An assassination attempt was made on Friday January 30, 1835 in Washington, D.C. Jackson was following the casket of Congressman Davis out of the Capitol after Davis’ funeral, when the would-be assassin Richard Lawrence stepped out from behind a pillar and fired.




U.S. President Abraham Lincoln:


"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe." – U.S. President Abraham Lincoln


"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."  -U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)


These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel."  -U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, speech to Illinois legislature, Jan. 1837.
See Vol. 1, p. 24 of Lincoln's Complete Works,
ed. by Nicolay and Hay, 1905)




Abraham Lincoln was assassinated as a result of his monetary policies. John Wilkes Booth would be seen as a 'hired gun.' Lincoln needed money to finance the Civil War. He was offered loans at high interest rates by bankers in Europe led by the Rothschilds. Rather than accept the loans, Lincoln found other means to fund the war effort. More importantly, the British bankers opposed Lincoln's protectionist policies. Some Englishmen in the 1860's believed that "British free trade, industrial monopoly and human slavery travel together." Lincoln's policies after the Civil War would have destroyed the Rothschilds' commodity speculations. After the war, Lincoln planned a mild Reconstruction policy which would have enabled a resumption of agriculture production. The Rothschilds were betting the other way on high prices caused by a tough Reconstruction policy toward the South. Lincoln was viewed as a threat to the established order of things, and he was assassinated as a result. The goal was to weaken the United States so the Rothschilds could takeover its economy. An article titled "The Rothschilds' International Plot to Kill Lincoln" was published October 29, 1976, in New Solidarity.




U. S. President James A. Garfield was inaugurated in 1881, he said "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce".  On July 2, 1881 Garfield was shot, he died on September 19.




U. S. President William McKinley

President McKinley is assassinated (1901) - the Banking Act which gave the U.S. paper money was supposed to expire that year. Due to the murder of President McKinley, the banking laws and paper money system were continued.


The date was September 6, 1901. President William McKinley was standing in line at the Buffalo Pan-American Exposition. McKinley had given an important speech the day before on trade policy and ending isolationism, which he delivered on the exposition grounds. While greeting people in line, Leon Czolgosz shot the 25th President of the United States twice at point blank range - once in the chest and once in the abdomen. He had hid his 32-caliber pistol beneath a handkerchief he was carrying. No one had noticed it. President McKinley died a week later. McKinley had  issued a high tariff on imported goods (50% higher than anything that existed before) when he was shot on Sept. 6, 1901. His anti-globalist, anti-international banking stance had cost him his life.




U. S. President Franklin Roosevelt -- After giving a speech in Miami on February 15, 1933, Giuseppe Zangara shot six shots into the crowd. None hit Roosevelt though the Mayor of Chicago, Anton Cermak was shot in the stomach.


On April 15, 1933, just months after this attempt on his life, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a treasonous


Executive Order ordering citizens to hand their gold and gold certificates to the private Federal Reserve Bank: Executive Order 6102:  "Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May a, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933"
"Section 9. Whoever willfully violates any provision of this Executive Order or of these regulations or of any rule, regulation or license issued thereunder may be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both"

FDR proceeded to implement the "New Deal" which converted the United States of America to the United Socialist States of America.  Instituting pure socialism in Social Security, the FCC to control the airwaves, the SEC to control banking and eliminate any potential competitors to the private Federal Reserve Bank.

We are still suffering the consequences of FDR's criminal "New Deal", a central government based on Fascist Socialism. 




One of possibly three “odd men out”:

U. S. President Harry S. Truman- On November 1, 1950, two Puerto Rican nationals attempted to kill President Truman to bring attention to the case for Puerto Rican independence. The President and his family were staying at the Blair House across from the White House and the two attempted assassins, Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, tried to shoot their way into the house. Torresola killed one and wounded another policeman while Collazo wounded one policeman. Torresola died in the gunfight. Collazo was arrested and sentenced to death which Truman commuted to life in prison. Carter freed Collazo from prison in 1979.

Truman, it seems, is the ONLY U.S. President that has had an assassination attempt on his life that was friendly towards international bankers and the Federal Reserve.




U. S. President John F. Kennedy

"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight." - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, in a comment made to a Columbia University class on Nov. 12, 1963, ten days before his assassination.

Kennedy issued Executive Order No. 11.110 which placed United States Notes in direct competition with Federal Reserve Notes, an act not to be tolerated by the International Industrial Cartel, who also happen to be the owners of all of the Federal Reserve Class A Stock.

President Kennedy pledged himself to what was the best for America and cared not how the greedy bankers of the Fed felt. JFK, like Lincoln in the 1860's. dared to have the U. S. Treasury issue U. S. Dollars, not Federal Reserve notes, and placed them into circulation without paying interest to any bankers, just as spelled out in the U. S. Constitution


J.F. Kennedy was assassinated because he started to print his own U.S. government-backed currency.


Our  hidden masters, the international bankers, would not allow the U.S. to escape from the toils of the Federal Reserve Banks, bypassing them and having the Treasury print interest-free U.S. government money instead of Federal Reserve Notes. It was a well-kept secret for a short period that President Kennedy had ordered the Treasury to print $4 billion in U.S. government currency.  Had Kennedy's bold move against those who were telling him to "follow instructions" succeeded, it would have put the Federal Reserve Banks out of business and released the people of this nation from a state of bondage far worse than anything experienced in the history of the world.  The international bankers could not allow such a   heresy to come to pass.




One of possibly three “odd men out”:


U.S. President Richard Nixon – one assassination attempt in 1974.


Nixon was a tool of the bankers, as he was the President who, on August 15, 1971, took the dollar off the gold standard, assassinated the dollar, and paved the way for the ruin of the country.


So it appears from what is known thus far that this (perhaps) was an assassination attempt that did not involve the international bankers.


However, Nixon was in the process of threatening to reveal who was behind the hit on JFK when the (CIA originated) Watergate scandal caused his resignation, effectively “assassinating” him by assassinating his character and making anything he would reveal unbelievable. There was a meeting in Texas, just prior to the assassination of JFK, of U.S. Generals together with FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, Richard M. Nixon, George H. W. Bush, CIA head Allen Dulles and others, plotting out all the details.


After leaving office as Vice President, Nixon, as little-known, headed-up and supervised, for the American CIA, the plan to invade Cuba in 1961, at the "Bay of Pigs". Later, as President, Nixon kept blackmailing the Aristocracy on the high-level plot to murder JFK, the details of which Nixon knew. The CIA, through the instigated Watergate Affair, forced Tricky Dick from the Presidency in 1974.


By the way, the CIA through their Foundation fronts, sponsored the 1968 commotions in Chicago at the Democrat Convention, discrediting the Democrats and enabling Nixon to win the election as President on the GOP ticket.


Nixon's false statement, which ended up in the Warren Report, was that he left Dallas on the morning of the murder. He was there as General Counsel for the Pepsico Bottlers Convention. Years later, a Pepsico director who was on a Dallas radio program and confirmed from his own direct knowledge, that Nixon was there all that day. In fact, said the director, Nixon outraged others at the Convention by demanding that the Convention proceed even after JFK was killed just after high noon.


 As part of a scheme to stop Nixon, after resigning, from continuing to blackmail the CIA and others, Ford, without much formality, pardoned Nixon from any federal criminal prosecutions.


That makes possibly three since the founding of the country.




One of possibly three “odd men out”:



U.S. President Gerald Ford-  twice in 1975-  first attempt on President Ford's life by Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, in Sacramento, California. September 5, 1975. Second attempt by Sara Jane Moore in San Francisco, California. September 22, 1975.


The Warren Commission, which investigated the killing of JFK, consisted of a number of people, who would probably have wanted to see the President dead; one of them was Allen Dulles and another one was the President-to-be, Gerald Ford. However, thirty-three years after the Warren Commission was held, former President Gerald Ford, as one of the key members of the Commission, was forced to admit that the Warren Report was fictionalized(5).




U.S. President Ronald Reagan  - On March 30, 1981, Reagan was shot in the lung by John Hinckley, Jr.

"The Federal Reserve is answerable to no one . . . not even the president." President Reagan

Not one dime of IRS money goes to the US Government, according to Reagan's Grace Commission: it all goes to pay interest on a bogus debt to the Federal Reserve (FED) , just to allow paper money to circulate as "Federal Reserve Notes".

When Ronald Reagan attempted to address the problem with the Federal Reserve Bank, a mysterious gunman attempted to assassinate him. Top Reagan officials had just opened a new offensive against the Federal Reserve Board, arguing that it was endangering the economic recovery.




Federal Reserve Bank (Inc.) A Murderous History?
Banksters, the Worlds Worst Gangsters

·1791-1811: First Bank of the United States

·1816-1836: Second Bank of the United States

·1837-1862: Free Banking Era -no formal central bank.

·1862-1913: System of National Banks

·1914-crrent: A consortium of 12 privately held banks called the Federal Reserve Bank.  The largest share holder of the bank are the Rothschild's of London.


The Federal Reserve Bank is a consortium of twelve private banks which are not part of the United States Government.

These private banks purchase paper notes from the U.S. mint for printing cost or simply enter digital money into their computer then lend back the money plus interest to the people through member banks.  The profits go into the share holders of the bank's pocket's, the U.S. public receives no benefit.

Sometimes the bank pays an arbitrary 'franchise fee' to the U.S. government.

The first two private National Banking Systems lasted about 20 years before being eliminated.  The current Federal Reserve Bank private National Bank has lasted nearly 100 years. 

In Producer Aaron Russo in the must see Movie From Freedom to Fascism, when interviewing Congressman Ron Paul, Aaron asks: "So the Federal Reserve is actually an illegal entity functioning within the Federal Government?"  Ron Paul's response: "It's illegal.  And what we have given to this so-called agency is the authority to counterfeit money."

The cost of this system to the U.S. public is hundreds of billions of dollars every year while holding the nation and people in a constant state of debt.

There have been assassination attempts on every President who attempted to eliminate these private National Banks.  The privately held Federal Reserve Bank has not once been audited and never pays any income tax on their astonishing income. 

The bank is supposed to bring stability to the economy, however, almost every major marked crash and war can be attributed to the Federal Reserve Bank, including the Great Depression, WW I, WW II, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, etc.

In 1913 in exchange for paying for his Presidential campaign, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act handing over the U.S. currency to twelve regional private banks.  In 1933 Roosevelt confiscated citizens gold and handed it to these private banks.


Every U.S. President, but for a handful, has been a lackey of the bankers. Last year alone, the American people paid hundreds of billions in interest to the bankers. To maintain this massive fraud, the bankers enforce an iron grip on the political and cultural organs of the nation.


Satan’s Golden Rule: “He who has the gold makes the rules”- The Globalists, who own the International Bankers, rule the world.