Notre Dame Fire – Are French Government Engineering A Cover Up?

NOTRE DAME ARSONIST ON VIDEO?

It should’ve been on every newscast in the world.  Instead, alt-news web sites are the only ones showing evidence pointing toward what I’ve said all along:  MUSLIMS SET THE FIRE IN THE NOTRE DAME CATHEDRAL.

 

LINK-MUSLIM MAN SEEN ON BALCONY DURING NOTRE DAME FIRE

Video 1.  As the fire on the roof rages, we see a Muslim man walking on the exterior balcony of the bell towers.  Notice the white Muslim skullcap.  Fire can be seen on the right.  [Video uploaded by Dave Klassix on YouTube.]

LINK-MAN ON ROOF SEEN SHORTLY BEFORE FIRE

5:05 p.m., April 15.  Less than two hours before the fire began, we see a man on the roof.  Three flashes of light go off.  Is this the same man in Video 1?  Are these incendiary devices set by remote control?  [Video uploaded by Ola Andersson on YouTube.)

 

These are questions the MSM and French officials should be asking, regardless of their “official explanation” – an electrical short in the wiring.  (All the wiring had been replaced in the 1990’s and is not old as they have tried to lie about.)  Hadn’t the media/French gov’t made up their minds while the fire was still burning?  Or is it because they don’t want to admit the truth?  The fire was set by Islamic immigrants they invited into their country.

 

How did the fire burn so quickly?  Have you ever felt solid oak?  It’s as hard as a rock and does not burn easily.  What really fueled that fire?

 

Why were the firemen so slow to react?  Why did it take up to three hours for them to begin spraying water on the fire, after it was already out of control?  The MSM ridicules Pres. Trump for tweeting “Must act quickly”.  Since when did common sense become something you laugh at?

 

Another damning question:  Why was a tweet removed saying Macron would rebuild Nortre Dame in accordance with the times?  What is Notre Dame going to be replaced with?  Is this what they wanted all along?

 

The Notre Dame fire is being referred to as France’s 9/11 in more ways than one.  Just as the U.S. gov’t knew Bin Laden/al-Qaeda were going to attack, so I believe the French gov’t knew of the plot to destroy Notre Dame.

Easter Sunday – April 21, 2019, Sri Lanka.  290 people are killed and 500 injured when a radical Muslim terrorist group named “National Thowheed Jamath” set off a series of bombs in Christian churches and 5-star hotels. The media has refused to name them as Muslim, calling them “religious fanatics”.  (Statue of Jesus survives the blast.)

What is the goal of the controllers?  Why are obvious facts being swept under the rug?  Why is it now “racist” to say Muslim terrorists did something?  What if we here in the U.S. have to start dealing with the same problems Europe is having if Trump is replaced with a Democrat eager and willing to take in these foreign devils?

https://ericreports.com/

Is The Brexit Fiasco A Deep State Stitch Up?

by Barney Lane, posted on Quora

I think of “deep state” as being about the behind the scenes machinery of government; the inner workings of the civil service and secret negotiations of politicians.

In this piece, I argue that yes, the deep state has played its part, but the main issue is the weakness and susceptibility of our Prime Minister, to manipulation. In short, May has been soft and pliable with the EU, who know her as “Mrs No until she says Yes”, while being infuriatingly stubborn with her own party and country.

To start with, let’s consider what we know. For me, these are the relevant facts:

Leave won the 2016 referendum, Cameron resigned, the Tories appointed Theresa May as leader and Theresa May said she would deliver Brexit

Theresa May lost her majority in the 2017 General Election, meaning she would have to depend on the votes of all her own MPs plus those of the DUP to get legislation through

Theresa May sacked her advisers Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, effectively replacing them with Olly Robbins, a civil servant. Shortly afterwards, she dropped DExEU from having a lead role in the exit negotiations, putting Olly Robbins in charge

Theresa May’s first notable move in the negotiations proper, was to accept without a fight, the EU’s sequencing demands. This was a major surprise. Notes of the meeting showed the EU delegation acting both surprised and delighted. Minutes show EU officials asking for reconfirmation that this was really the UK’s position

In late 2017, Theresa May allowed talk of remaining in the customs union to resurface, doing nothing to clarify the government’s policy, which was to leave the customs union

In December 2017, Theresa May signed a political agreement giving away £39 billion and signed us up to a “backstop” that would commit the UK to remaining under EU control until it had found a way of managing the customs border in Ireland, in a way that satisfied the EU

When the political declaration was converted into legal text, Theresa May said “no British PM could sign this”. This was the only thing of note, that Theresa May said about Brexit in the first half of 2018. She later did sign it

In mid-2018, Theresa May faced a backbench rebellion attempting to force legislation to keep us in the customs union. Theresa May invited the ringleader Dominic Grieve to Downing Street to persuade him to drop his rebellion. It is understood that she made him privy to a plan that was at this stage, not widely known. Dominic Grieve promptly dropped his rebellion

In July 2018, Theresa May held the Chequers summit where she unveiled the Brexit whitepaper. She told her government, the meeting would not end until everyone had agreed to it and if anyone resigned, ministerial transport would not be available for the trip home

The whitepaper horrified some ministers, who believed it amounted to a customs union in all but name. Boris Johnson resigned. David Davis resigned

In his resignation speech, Davis criticised May for sidelining his department, which had been set up to prepare the UK for its departure from the EU, while instead favouring her own civil service adviser Olly Robbins

In replying, Theresa May said Davis’s department had not come up with a workable plan

In an article in the Telegraph, Davis replied that this was deeply disingenuous. His department had a detailed and carefully worked out plan. It was she, the PM who had chosen to ignore it while developing her own alternative plan without telling anyone

Johnson wrote in the Telegraph, that Theresa May had allowed the Ireland border to become prominent in the negotiations because she had unquestioningly accepted the EU’s framing of the issue and had not even tried to find a solution

Come December 2018, the EU published their Withdrawal Agreement (WA). It was very similar to the Chequers whitepaper, except that it lacked the May/Robbins scheme for the UK collecting tariffs on behalf of the EU. The WA’s political declaration sought a future relationship that would build upon “the single customs territory”

Minutes of the meeting where Theresa May signed the WA showed that the EU had said “The customs union will be the basis for the future relationship. The EU will retain all control”. Theresa May had signed a document that she knew the EU interpreted as implying a permanent customs union, and in which the EU would retain full control

The WA was voted down three times by Parliament. Most notably, it was voted down by Brexit-supporting MPs who believed it was “not Brexit” and by the DUP who believed it had sold out their territory

The Brady amendment gave Theresa May a mandate to renegotiate the Ireland backstop, which keeps the UK in a customs union with the EU until the EU approves the UK’s plans for managing the border

May largely ignored this mandate, saying she would not attempt a renegotiation but instead, half-heartedly said she would “seek changes”

On the basis of the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the main reason Brexit (in this incarnation) has failed, is that Theresa May changed course. While her general stance was initially to the liking of Brexit supporting MPs, her final deal, was not.

Having lost her majority in parliament, she inevitably had to work harder to reconcile the interests of her MPs, who had different opinions. However, it is clear from the above that at each node of the decision tree, she leaned towards her remainer MPs. She didn’t tell anyone this was what she was doing or why, she just did it.

Her eventual WA was a death by a thousand cuts, non-Brexit Brexit. But what happened to make her change course? That’s the key question.

By any standard, her behaviour in office has been extraordinary. Consider where the Tories were at the start. Dominic Lawson wrote about this in the Sunday Times, this morning in Brexit on a plate — and the Tories blew it. [1]

Only two years ago the Tories were united under the firm but fair leadership of the headmistressy Theresa May, Farage had been rendered irrelevant and Labour was still riven by the shock of a referendum outcome that pitted it against the very people (the industrial working class) it was formed to represent.

Thus, in February 2017, this column was headlined “Cheer Up, Mr Cameron, you won your party the greatest prize imaginable”. The former PM was being ridiculed almost daily, and yet, I argued, while the referendum result had trashed his reputation as a political winner, he was actually the accidental author of a miraculous transformation in his party’s fortunes: “Unintentionally, Cameron has achieved for the Conservatives something a string of earlier leaders signally failed to do. He has made them the party that is united over the vexed question of the UK’s relationship with the European Union and — a completely unexpected bonus — turned Labour into a house divided on this issue.”

That aged well, didn’t it? In fact the second half of that analysis still holds true and explains Labour’s continuing inability to come up with a Brexit policy that could be communicated coherently (or at all) on an election leaflet. But that column was written at the moment of the party’s greatest discomfiture, the week after parliament passed the bill to invoke article 50 — giving us just two years (ha!) to negotiate our departure from the EU. Corbyn’s three-line whip ordering his MPs to back the government’s policy led to resignations from the shadow cabinet and thousands of party members quitting in protest.

The reason Theresa May’s behaviour has been so extraordinary is that she did not need to lean towards Remain in her implementation of Brexit. The Tories were united around a clean Brexit. That was the referendum result. That was what the manifesto said. It could not have been clearer. Even those who did not agree with the result of the referendum, accepted both it and the government’s interpretation of it.

When murmurings about a “softening” of Brexit started to emerge, May could have acted to silence them, reminding her MPs of their manifesto commitments, but she did not. From a parliamentary arithmetic point of view, it was far easier for her to lean towards her Brexiteer contingent than her Remain contingent. Leaning towards her Brexiteers would not have angered her Remainers as much as leaning towards her Remainers have angered her Brexiteers. All she needed to do was to maintain existing party policy, to which all her MPs had explicitly agreed by standing for election upon its manifesto.

What happened? Theresa May is well known as someone who can be “captured” by her advisers. Who were her advisers? Before the 2017 election, her advisers were Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill — both clean Brexit advocates. After the election, her advisers were Olly Robbins and — as far as one can tell — the EU. In the past 2 years, May has spent many hours in the offices of her fellow European leaders.

Now, there’s an element of deep state at work here. An anonymous civil servant wrote an article in the Telegraph titled “Believe me, the Civil Service is trying to sink Brexit. I have seen it from the inside”[2] He or she writes:

A quick scroll though the social media accounts of my colleagues and you will find images of them proudly waving ‘Remain’ placards, campaigning for a ‘People’s Vote’, boasting ‘Jez we can’ and of course the usual apocalyptic messages of doom since the Brexit vote. The double-standards are astonishing. If I so much as followed the activities of Nigel Farage, I have no doubt that I would be called in for questioning. I re-call one conversation with a senior member of staff at the Foreign Office who told me she was ashamed when Boris Johnson was appointed Foreign Secretary as he is so “typically British”.

This department is particularly notorious for its anti-Brexit bias. My experience tells me that there is a genuine hatred of those who voted for Brexit. I recall my first day in the Civil Service as a graduate, being invited to a meeting of senior members of staff who spent the good part of two hours in agreement that the public made a “stupid” decision in the EU referendum.

Unfortunately, this bias doesn’t end with snide insults and childish quips. It goes to the root of their day-to-day work and has truly negative impacts on the way we conduct the important tasks ahead of us. I have in fact come across senior staff working on our post-Brexit relationships who openly talk down the prospect of a UK-US FTA and encourage anti-Trump hysteria. Many of them even joined the protests against the President’s visit last year. During his visit it was common to hear jokes about Trump’s assassination from the very people meant to be working with our closest ally. The only thing worse than being pro-Brexit in the Civil Service is being pro-Trump.

But it doesn’t stop there. There is a strong presence of Anglophobia, combined with cultural Marxism that runs through the civil service. It has meant that many Civil Servants, including myself, have been actively discouraged from co-operating with Think Tanks which are seen as being “too right wing” despite sharing our goal of promoting free trade. This attitude also prevails in our work with our closest allies, particularly in the Commonwealth, where we are afraid to be seen as overly keen to work with countries that are run by “rich white men”.

Contrary to popular belief, Civil Servants often shape the views of Ministers. This makes the prevalent leftist culture within the Civil Service all the more concerning. These ardent remainer and left wing civil servants are the ones who provide the briefings, select the invites and choose the priorities for Ministers. How did we get to this point? The Civil Service is one of the biggest graduate employers, whilst universities have allowed a leftist culture of political correctness to flourish in recent decades.

Brexit is the greatest opportunity this country has faced in years, yet our Government machine is currently working from within to frustrate it. This must not go on. In the next phase of the Brexit negotiations it is vital our civil service ceases to allow the massive remain voting bias that has so far helped scupper our post-Brexit future.

Add to that the misuse of Treasury resources for giving misleading information about the economic consequences of Brexit — resources that were refused to other departments requesting them for no-deal preparations — and it’s clear there’s an element of deep state at work. However, it is the weakness and stubbornness of our Prime Minister, that is the most important part of the explanation.

It’s like a disease. If you’re unhealthy and have a weakened immune system, you are more susceptible to diseases. For most healthy people, flu can be an unpleasant few days in bed. For weakened people, it can be a killer.

That the civil service has worked to frustrate Brexit is both credible and predictable. However, it is the Prime Minister’s susceptibility to it, that has led to the failure of her attempt to deliver Brexit.

Footnotes

[1] Brexit on a plate — and the Tories blew it

[2] Believe me, the Civil Service is trying to sink Brexit. I have seen it from the inside

RELATED POSTS:

Brexit Is Now About More Than Leaving The EU

Until now we have not posted anything in the past few days on Brexit. Our position is well know to our readers, let’s face it, the saturation coverage left nothing new to be said. The whole thing is a craptangle, but it was obvious from when the Conservative Party engineered a situation in which Theresa May was left as the only candidate for the leadership that there could be no other outcome.

EU “Sounds Alarm” Over New US Sanctions On Russia; Germany Threatens Retaliation
Late on Friday (21/07/17), Congressional negotiators agreed to advance a cross – party bill that would punish Russia for its (alleged) interference in the 2016 election according to the Wall Street Journal. And while it seems improbable that President Trump would sign the bill if it reaches his desk, the loudest complaint about the bill to date has emerged not from the Oval Office, but from US allies in NATO and the European Union …

Nigel Farage Swipes Back At Irrational, Screeching, Crazy Clinton
US Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton launched a hysterical, irrational attack, filled with half truths and blatant lies, against the most prominent figure in the campaign to get Britain out of the EU (Brexit), UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, during a speech at a rally today. Mrs Clinton, responding to Farage’s address to a large and enthusiastic audience at a Donald Trump rally, may have been rattled at the prospect of having such a hihly effective campaigner in the rival camp …

Rebellion Against EU Authoritarianism Escalates As 8th Member Nation Threatens Referendum
Brussels went too far, they crossed the line in moving from an economic union to a political pan – European political empire. In the end it was a race as to which member state would quit first, Britain, Natherlands, Denmark or Italy. In the event it is Britain.

Is Brexit A Harbinger Of Doom For The ‘Experts’
The Brexit vote, the decision by a democratic majority in Britain to leave the European Union has sent shockwaves around the world. Not only does the EU now face a tsunami of departures, the usurpation of democracy by ‘experts’ ( technocrats ) has been challenged and exposed as a sham.

BREXIT vs. GREXIT – The Truth About The European Union And How It Treats Members
Unless the testicularly deficient politicians stand up for their nations he only thing that will halt the European Union’s push beyond Europe’s geographical borders to incorporate Asian, middle eastern and north African nations is war. Power is addictive and the bean counters of Brussels have ambitions far beyond Europe.

The Hypocrisy and Snobbery Of The Remain Campaign And The Antidote

When I had to defriend a Facebook contact because she was arguing in favour of the EU, it was not simply because I support Brexit that I had become pissed of with her, it was the snobbish and condescending way she dismissed supporters of LEAVE and their case. People are entitled to their opinion on the European Union, but they should check the ‘facts’ they post in support of their arguments.

The Labour Case For Brexit by Kate Hoey M.P.
After my short intro is a savage indictment by Brexit supporting Labour MP Kate Hoey of the way the Labour Party has abandoned the working class and is now trying to betray the party’s proud heritage and its roots in the industrial areas by taking Britain into an undemocratic, corporate controlled, capitalist friendly, elite dominated globalist control freak project.

Dutch Referendum This Week Shows why We Should Leave The EU.
Few of you were aware probably that there is an EU referendum vote in The Netherlands this week. As usual with anything negative about the EU barely a word has been printed in the topic in mainstream media and the silence from our notionally unbiased national broadcaster The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has been deafening.

French, Belgians, Dutch, Italians Follow Britain in Euroskepticism
Europeans want us British to lead them out of Europe. Don’t be fooled by project fear, the European Union (aka the Euronazi Federal Superstate) is falling apart. There will not be chaos if we leave, there will be chaos if we stay.

Head Of European Institute: Brexit ‘Better’ For Everyone
Brexit would be the best result of Britain’s in / out referendum for both Britain and the EU i a Belgian professor who heads up the European Institute at the London School of Economics (LSE) has said.

Johnson’s article lines up his reasons why Britain must exit on June 23rd. It’s time to be brave
OK, I know a lot of you think Boris is most accurately described by a word many people find offensive, but he’s put together a very good argument here on why we must leave the EU. Published in part here under ‘fair use’ terms and conditions, in the public interest …

Cameron’s EU Package: Not A Deal But A Few Turns In The Spin Machine
As we and almost everybody else predicted, David Cameron’s deal to improve Britain’s relationship with the EU is worthless. It changes nmothing, and can be vetoed once we have voted to stay in.

Cameron Plays Deal Or No Deal In Europe
David Cameron, who was apparently up all night trying to make other European leaders understand why his country needs a better deal in order to poersuade the prople it is a good idea stay in the EU. Unless Cameron gets what will enable him to sell the idea of surrendering national sovereignty to a Federal European Superstate ruled by a committee of unelected bureaucrats in to the British public he will not campaign for the UK to remain in the bloc

EU Refuses to Block Eurozone Integration to Reach Agreement With UK
Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann said at the E?U summit on British membership terms that the European Union wants to reach an agreement with the United Kingdom, but it is not prepared to compromise the banking union (financial integration) or the further integration of monetary union (UK being forced to abandon the pound join the Euro?) to achieve this goal.