Woodrow Wilson War President

for Zionist Bankers

Most establishment scholars belong to a self-imposed cultural ban of any serious discussion regarding the historic significance of international finance in the road to permanent war and the slavery of central bank fiat currency. The fact that Zionist Banksters make up a disproportionate influence and impact to their population is so toxic that the mere mention of the subject risks the red herring acquisition of anti-Semitism. Regrettably, the task of seeking the truth no longer is the basis of chronicling Western Civilization. If nothing else, review the Totalitarian Collectivism essay, The Cause and Consequences of World War I, before you close your mind to actual events of the previous hundred years.

In this day of "PC" orthodoxy and political censorship, the viewpoint of Brother Nathanael Kapner stands out as a voice that speaks with authority, having been raised as a Jew. Examine the article, When Woodrow Wilson Went ‘Insane’.

WITH POWERFUL JEWS BEHIND HIM, Woodrow Wilson has done more to bring America into the hands of international Jewry’s pernicious designs than any other president.

As Jewry’s abject pawn, Wilson was instrumental in creating:

•           The Federal Reserve Bank 

•           The Federal Trade Commission 

•           The Federal Income Tax 

•           The Federal Intervention of WWI 

These events should be known by any student of the Wilson Presidency. However, how many know much less accept the following from Brother Nathanael in Woodrow Wilson - Pawn Of The Jews.

THE ZIONIST PLAN TO DOMINATE AMERICAN LIFE was already in motion by the early 1900s.

"A central Bank, legislation for an income tax, and American involvement in a world war, were on the Zionist list of “things to do.”

The key Jewish players, -1- Jacob Schiff, head of Kuhn Loeb Bank; -2- Paul Warburg, brother-in-law to Schiff; -3- Bernard Baruch, a leading Wall Street mogul; -4- and Edward Mandell House, (originally “Huis”), who negotiated cotton purchases in the US for the Rothschilds, only needed a pawn in the White House to bring their Zionist plan to fruition. 

In 1910, the four Zionist leaders found their man, (a man of compromised morals known as “Peck’s Bad Boy”), in Professor Woodrow Wilson, recently retired as president of Princeton University.

Already established as a “political academic” and with an opening in the Democratic Party for the governorship of New Jersey, Wilson was financed by Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg, and their fellow Jewish associate, Henry Morgenthau, Sr., to seat him as New Jersey’s Governor in 1911."

The key in understanding the President Wilson administration resolves around "Colonel" Edward M. House, advisor and author of the account, Philip Dru: Administrator. Wilson referenced: "Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one."

In the archived papers of Colonel House, researcher Stan Monteith found a "typewritten copy of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in the papers of Col. Edward M. House at Yale University. This seemed like confirmation of the widely held view that House (1858-1938) was a Rothschild agent."

The 99-page House typescript is a different English translation from the Victor Marsden translation, which is most commonly used. (I suspect "The Protocols" were originally written in French, originating in the Mizraim Lodge.)

The most obvious difference is the title.

·     Marsden's book is, "The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion."

·     The translation in House's possession is, "Protocols of the Meeting of the Zionist Men of Wisdom."

In this translation, "meeting" is singular and the "Elders" are clearly identified as "Zionists."

The significance is that "Zionist" used here is a movement for world domination, not one confined to establishing a Jewish homeland. 

The book ALL THE PRESIDENTS’ BANKERS: The Hidden Alliances that Drive American Power by Nomi Prins adds to this discussion. All The Presidents' Bankers: The Mid-1910s: Bankers Go To War reflects upon the role J.P. Morgan played during World War I.

"Not wanting to leave war financing to chance, Wilson and Morgan kicked their power alliance into gear. At the request of high-ranking State Department officials, Morgan immediately immersed himself in war financing issues. On August 10, 1914, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan wrote Wilson that Morgan had asked whether there would be any objection if his bank made loans to the French government and the Rothschilds’ Bank (also intended for the French government). Bryan was concerned that approving such an extension of capital might detract from the neutrality position that Wilson had adopted and, worse, invite other requests for loans from nations less allied with the United States than France, such as Germany or Austria. The Morgan Bank was only interested in assisting the Allies."

Well, missing from this assessment is the contention of Eustace Mullins which puts "forth the supposition that the Morgans were nothing more than Rothschild agents. Mullins wrote that the Rothschilds, “…preferred to operate anonymously in the US behind the facade of J.P. Morgan & Company”.

The popular version that Woodrow Wilson was a man of peace is absurd. His Fourteen Points were a progressive illusion that played directly into the hands of the banksters. "Colonel" Edward M. House worked to secure the acceptance of agreement on topics likely to arise in the anticipated peace conference.

Biographers of Edith Bolling Galt Wilson would have you believe that she was the actual president during most of Wilson's second term. How naive. The twin instruments of tyranny; namely, debt created money issued by the private central banking system and perpetual internationalist war of empire are the true legacy of President Woodrow Wilson.

As long as individuals are fearful to address the historic record of the globalist cabal of financial enslavement and warfare merchants of munitions, the world will be doomed to damnation . Ignoring this forbidden history guarantees the loss of our mutual survival and cultural heritage. Emerge from your coma and discover reality.

USA: Five corrupt “Justices”

Ever since the United States Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush president during the coup of 2000, a majority of its members have been on an unabashed mission to replace democracy with plutocracy and individual freedom with corporate fascism.

In Citizens United, five so-called “justices” stated that corporations and labor unions can spend unlimited amounts of money to indirectly (through advertising, movies, etc.) support political candidates.  Although this appears to create a balance between the rights of corporations and labor, its duplicity soon became apparent.  Following this ruling, numerous states instituted “right-to-work” laws (Indiana even “fast-tracking” theirs) that allow workers in union shops to refuse to pay union dues, while still compelling unions to provide them representation.

The strategy was simple.  Since labor unions traditionally represent Democratic candidates, pretend that, in theory, unions have the right to financially support candidates of their choice, but then take away their resources to do so.  This is not much different from arguing that a farmer has the right to grow crops while taking away his/her land.

Naturally, this will leave the corporate voice as the most powerful voice in American politics.  After all, what mainstream politician is going to campaign on a workers’ rights platform if it will cost him/her corporate sponsorship?

But the Supreme Court, in another 5-4 decision, wasn’t satisfied with the corruption wrought by Citizens United.  The case of McCutcheon vs. FEC (2014) gave corporations and wealthy individuals the ability to make financial donations directly to an unlimited number of candidates.

And they still were not done.  Since the Citizens United ruling, these five corrupt “justices” have continued their crusade to regress the United States Constitution back to the days when only white male landowners could vote.  To accomplish this, they have:

1.     Gutted the Voting Rights Act that protects the right of African-Americans to vote;

2.     Allowed states to “purge” voter registration rolls, even though such purges disproportionately affect racial minorities and the poor;

3.     Defined political corruption so narrowly that it is now almost impossible to prosecute;

4.      Supported gerrymandering by permitting states to create election districts designed to dilute the votes of racial minorities and/or to give political advantage to the party in power;

5.     And, as I was writing this article, the Court, in the case of Janus vs. AFSCME (and in another 5-4 decision) ruled that non-union, public sector employees do not have to pay union dues, even though the union still must represent them. 

And for those who would argue that my arguments about the true intent of these rulings are nothing more than hyperbole, I give you this tweet from Donald Trump after the Janus ruling.  “Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!”

Having practiced law, and directly witnessed the idiocy, political corruption, and incompetence of many participants in it, including many judges, I can state unequivocally that America’s legal system would be laughable, if its consequences to people’s liberties, and even their lives, wasn’t so severe.  Drenching horse manure with gravy does not turn it into mashed potatoes, and cloaking a person with a black robe does not magically remove their ineptitude, venality, or biases, or bestow them with some ethereal wisdom.

There is a theory in jurisprudence, known as legal realism, that argues there is no such thing as law-just judges doing whatever they want and calling it law.

This argument is often countered by those who say that judges routinely follow legal precedents (known as stare decisis), even when those precedents conflict with their personal beliefs.  In fact, one of the infamous gang-of-five, chief “justice” John Roberts, often supports stare decisis with his words.

His deeds, however, tell a whole different story.  In both the Citizens United and Janus rulings, for example, Roberts completely ignored decades of legal precedent.

But perhaps the strongest argument that legal realism is the true American jurisprudence, one need look no further than the machinations of one of the most powerful and duplicitous members of the United States Senate:  Mitch McConnell.

When one of the original gang-of-five, Antonin Scalia died, Barack Obama sought to replace him with Merrick Garland, but McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for him.  Ultimately, after Trump’s dubious “election,” Neil Gorsuch became Scalia’s replacement.  After Gorsuch was instrumental in upholding Trump’s so-called “travel ban” (in another 5-4 vote), McConnell gloated by sending out a picture of him shaking Gorsuch’s hand.

Let that image sink in.  If there was truly such a thing as “law,” and judges are, unless they have good cause not to, supposed to follow stare decisis, then why should it matter who assumed Scalia’s seat?  The answer is clear:  The United States Supreme Court is not comprised of “learned” legal scholars nobly interpreting the Constitution.  It is an assortment of political lackeys with the power to give their biases, racism, and hypocrisy the force of law.

For example, many legal critics have noted that this gang-of-five, in ruling that a so-called “Christian” baker could deny service to a same-sex couple, relied heavily on alleged “anti-religious” statements government officials had directed against him.  Yet just a few days later, this same gang-of-five totally ignored Trump’s anti-Muslim statements when upholding his “travel ban.”

And it gets worse.  Shortly after the Janus ruling, one of the gang-of-five, Anthony Kennedy, announced his retirement.  While Kennedy’s role in the destruction of American democracy should not be understated, he was considered to be the “swing vote” that would occasionally join the “liberal bloc” of justices.

This was particularly evident in cases involving the right of same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity and marry.  But Kennedy’s retirement leaves unsettled the issue of whether private businesses can discriminate against people based upon their sexual orientation, and, given the fact that Trump will be allowed to pick his successor, the prospect of prohibiting such discrimination has significantly dimmed.

In two recent Pravda.Report articles (The Sarah Huckabee Sanders Scam, June 24, 2018, and The Huckabee Sanders Scam, Part Two, June 27, 2018), I discussed the “outrage” that erupted after Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s chief propagandist, was denied service at a small Virginia restaurant, even though both Sanders and Trump have openly defended businesses that refused to serve same-sex couples.

Many commentators and politicians, even Democrats usually against Trump, denounced this restaurant’s actions and demanded a return to “civility.”

The motivation behind this demand was understandable.  By refusing to take the “low road,” these Democratic politicians believe they will negate Trump’s ability to influence voters in the looming mid-term elections by portraying himself, Sanders, and others of their ilk as “victims” of the “intolerant left.”  And the fact that Trump is going to attempt to replace Kennedy prior to these elections clearly indicates he has concerns about Democrats retaking the House, Senate, or both.

But an article by Ryan Cooper in THE WEEK, entitled In Defense of Incivility effectively argued that the Democrats’ “high-road” strategy might be quixotic.

Cooper notes that proponents of the “far right” could care less about civility when it comes to expressing their viewpoints, and, as I stated in Huckabee Sanders, Part Two, they often demand “civility” from their opponents just so they can portray them as vacillating and weak.

But Cooper’s most potent argument is that bringing change through votes is becoming more and more unrealistic thanks to institutions like the United States Supreme Court: “If electoral pathways are not available-because the next election is some months hence, or the legislature has been rigged through gerrymandering and Voter ID laws, or people simply have no congressional representation at all-that political force [incivility] is going to flow the other way.  It’s ridiculous to expect otherwise.”

I would add that it is also ridiculous to allow five corrupt, politicized, biased hypocrites in black robes to detrimentally impact the lives of millions of people.  And, for the record, I would say this regardless of where on the political spectrum these five reside.

My solution, as I proposed in my article, The Supreme Court Should Not Be Supreme (Pravda.Report, June 21, 2012), is that Supreme Court decisions be submitted and reviewed by all federal judges in the district and appellate courts, who would then have the power to overrule them:  “A 5-4 decision would be overturned if 51% of [these] judges voted against it; a 6-3 decision would require a minimum of 61% to overturn; a 7-2 decision, a minimum of 71%; an 8-1 decision, a minimum of 81%; and a 9-0 decision, a minimum of 91%.”

Not only would this provide a much needed “check-and-balance” on the power of five unelected people, it would also reduce the machinations of unscrupulous politicians like McConnell and Trump, who seek to “pack” the court so it can carry out their political agendas.

There are dark days ahead in America-a darkness that might spread across the world.  Sadly, even if America awakes and responds to the corruption, mendacity, hypocrisy, and divisiveness Trump is bringing to the nation by voting him and his followers out of office, his imprint could remain for decades in the hands of five corrupt “justices.”

British jihadis who travel to Iraq to fight for ISIS face death by hanging after trials lasting as little as 10 minutes

• A judge has revealed that a number of UK passport holders are awaiting trial after capture on the battlefield
• Prime minister Haider al-Abadi, ordered the execution of all jihadis on death row in retaliation for IS killing eight hostages
• Some fighters with British passports had already been sentenced and it is ‘possible’ they had been given the death penalty

British fanatics who travel to Iraq to fight for Islamic State face death by hanging after trials lasting as little as ten minutes.

A judge has revealed that a number of UK passport holders are awaiting trial after capture on the battlefield – and says he is protecting Britain by sentencing terrorists to death.

His comments came as Iraq executed 13 convicted terrorists hours after the country’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, ordered the immediate execution of all jihadis on death row in retaliation for IS killing eight hostages.

+2

A judge has revealed that a number of UK passport holders are awaiting trial after capture on the battlefield

+2

An image grab taken from an AFPTV video shows Belgian jihadist Tarik Jadaoun, known by his nom de guerre Abu Hamza al-Beljiki, being escorted out of the court after his trial in Baghdad

Abdul Sattar Beraqdar, spokesman for the Supreme Judicial Council, has tried hundreds of cases involving IS at the central criminal court in Baghdad, and sentenced many to death.

The judge said some fighters with British passports had already been sentenced and it was ‘possible’ they had been given the death penalty. More cases are yet to be completed, he added.

His comments are the first public confirmation that there are UK fighters in Iraqi jails. The Foreign Office in London said it was not aware of the cases mentioned.

Arguing that British members of IS deserve to die, Mr Beraqdar said: ‘The punishment, as much as it seems strong, will affect the security of your country.

British ISIS soldiers blasts UK in first audio interview

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

1:08

Previous

Play

Skip

Unmute

Current Time

1:08

/

Duration Time

7:39

Fullscreen

Need Text

SHARE THIS

MORE VIDEOS

ISIS behead three Peshmerga soldiers in front of large crowd

DISTURBING CONTENT: ISIS terrorists execute soldi…

ISIS release video of ten kurdish soldiers captured in …

48 Yemeni soldiers killed by ISIS suicide bomber in Aden

‘I am sure there are hundreds of people in Britain at this moment thinking of committing similar crimes. That’s why we, as Iraqis, if we are tough in sentencing these people, they will think thoroughly before taking any action.’

Some 850 UK citizens are believed to have travelled to Iraq and Syria to fight with IS, and hundreds are still thought to be there.

The Mail is aware of at least one British citizen suspected of fighting for IS who is currently detained in Iraq. UK officials examined the possibility of flying him back to Britain on an RAF jet to face trial last year – but ministers blocked the plan, fearing it would ‘open the floodgates’.

It is not clear how many more British fighters are detained in Iraq, but at least three are in prison in Syria, including two members of the notorious ‘Beatles’ gang of hostage executioners.

The Mail was granted access to Baghdad’s high-security central criminal court, where nine IS suspects, including one from Turkey, were tried over three hours. Some trials were as short as ten minutes.

Mass execution for fanatics  

Islamic State terrorists are hanged in large groups at the notorious al-Hoot prison 200 miles south-east of Baghdad.

They stand on a metal frame with small doors beneath them, which open when the order is given.

Chilling photos released by the justice ministry last week showed four dead extremists, hooded and handcuffed, hanging in a row in the gallows.

Before their execution they sat crossed-legged and blindfolded in front of a wall. They were part of a group of 13 who were hanged.

The UN has said it is ‘appalled’ at the mass executions.In one that lasted 15 minutes, Mohammed Yousif was accused of being a member of IS. He pleaded innocent, saying ‘my confession was taken from me by force’.

The judge in the case told the Mail: ‘The savage and brutal crimes they committed, killing people in cold blood – they deserve the maximum punishment.’

A third judge said: ‘You in the UK can put [a terrorist] in jail for the rest of his life and you can spend money on him. We don’t have enough resources.

‘Putting them in jail instead of executing them could lead to them running away. They are not only threatening Iraq if they fled, they would threaten the whole of Europe, including Britain. For that reason, the terrorists should be eliminated here.’

In April a judicial source said more than 300 people, including about 100 foreign women, had been condemned to death in Iraq for links with IS.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: ‘Our policy remains that terrorist fighters should be held to account by the states upon whose territories their crimes have been committed. We oppose the death penalty in all cases.’