The state of Connecticut is using lawfare—the strategic use of legal and institutional mechanisms—to target political activist and 2024 Republican candidate John Flynn. https://x.com/flynn2022?s=21 He is allegedly being held at Whiting Forensic Hospital under the pretense of “restoring competency” for a May 19th hearing related to 2022 criminal charges. Some argue that these charges may have been inflated or fabricated as part of a broader pattern of politically motivated prosecutions in the state. Concerns are also raised about potential forced medication and the suppression of Flynn’s activism, particularly his allegations of corruption. The situation is likened to other cases where legal processes were allegedly weaponized to silence dissent.
President Trump’s statement that Iran would be blamed for an attack on an American war ship has sparked concern. This concern is centered on the possibility that American war ships may be targeted by false flag attacks perpetrated by Satanic New World Order secret societies that have globalist interests that control financial institutions, and the military industrial complex. This concern is not unwarranted because it plays right into the hands of those Illuminati banksters that want to kick off WW3 in order to escape prosecution for the crimes committed against humanity. AntiDeepStateParty.com is against this policy of presidential decree of war against Iran.
During Trump’s first administration (2017–2021), there was no publicly known formal plan for a full-scale war with Iran, but tensions were extremely high, and several key events suggested that military conflict was a serious possibility. Here are some key aspects of Trump’s Iran strategy and any potential war planning:
1. “Maximum Pressure” Campaign
• The Trump administration withdrew from the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) in 2018, reimposing and intensifying economic sanctions.
• The goal was to cripple Iran’s economy and force it to renegotiate on nuclear development, missile programs, and regional influence.
• Iran responded by resuming nuclear enrichment and engaging in more aggressive regional activities.
2. Assassination of General Qassem Soleimani (2020)
• On January 3, 2020, the U.S. killed Iran’s top general, Qassem Soleimani, in a drone strike in Baghdad.
• Iran retaliated by launching missile attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq, injuring American soldiers but avoiding direct escalation.
• This was the closest moment to outright war, with both sides appearing ready for further confrontation.
3. Pentagon War Plans and Trump’s Final Months
• Reports suggest that the Pentagon had contingency plans for a possible conflict with Iran, as it does for many global adversaries.
• In late 2020, after Biden won the election, Trump reportedly asked senior officials about options for striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
• Top advisers, including then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, advised against it, warning of a potential regional war.
4. Covert and Cyber Warfare
• The Trump administration approved covert operations against Iran, including cyberattacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
• Israel, with U.S. backing, was suspected of conducting sabotage operations against Iranian nuclear facilities and assassinating nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.
Conclusion: Was There a Plan for War?
• There was no publicly released formal war plan, but Trump’s policies and actions—especially Soleimani’s killing—suggested that a military confrontation was considered.
• The U.S. military had contingency plans in case of war, but Trump ultimately avoided a full-scale conflict.
• Some former officials suggested that Trump preferred economic and covert pressure over a full invasion, though he left office with Iran more adversarial than when he began.
Had he won a second term, it’s unclear whether his administration would have escalated to war or pursued a new deal with Iran.
A war between the U.S. and Iran would be a major geopolitical event with widespread consequences. Here’s a breakdown of what could happen:
1. Military Conflict
• The U.S. would likely conduct airstrikes on Iranian military sites, nuclear facilities, and government infrastructure.
• Iran could retaliate by targeting U.S. bases in the Middle East, attacking allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, or disrupting global oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
• Iran-backed militias in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen could launch attacks on U.S. and allied forces.
• Cyber warfare would be a major battleground, with both sides attempting to disrupt each other’s infrastructure.
2. Regional Escalation
• A war could drag in regional players like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
• Hezbollah (Iran’s ally in Lebanon) could attack Israel, leading to a larger Middle Eastern conflict.
• Other countries, like Russia and China, might provide indirect support to Iran through weapons or diplomatic backing.
3. Economic Fallout
• Oil prices would skyrocket due to potential disruptions in Persian Gulf shipping.
• Global stock markets would likely take a hit, and inflation could rise.
• Iran could attack key oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, further destabilizing energy markets.
4. Domestic Impact in the U.S.
• The war would be expensive, potentially costing trillions.
• Political divisions would deepen, especially if the conflict dragged on without clear objectives.
• If the war required large-scale troop deployment, the possibility of a draft (though unlikely) could arise.
5. Nuclear Risk
• While Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons yet, a war could push it to accelerate its nuclear program.
• Iran has developed a nuclear bomb, that could most likely be used against Israel or the U.S. and will most certainly take drastic measures to prevent itself from being destroyed by its enemies.
6. Diplomatic Consequences
• U.S. allies in Europe might oppose the war, causing diplomatic rifts.
• Russia and China could use the conflict to strengthen their influence in the region.
• Iran could try to rally anti-U.S. sentiment globally, especially in the Muslim world.
Conclusion
A U.S.-Iran war would likely be long, costly, and destabilizing, with no clear winners. While the U.S. has superior military power, Iran has the ability to wage asymmetric warfare, making a quick and decisive victory unlikely. Most experts believe diplomacy, even if strained, is preferable to outright war.
Discussions about prophecy, war with Iran, and the United States often stem from religious, political, and historical perspectives. Here are some key viewpoints on the topic:
1. Biblical Prophecy and Iran (Persia)
• Some Christian eschatologists believe that Iran (historically Persia) is mentioned in Ezekiel 38-39 as part of a coalition against Israel in the “War of Gog and Magog.”
• Certain interpretations suggest that Iran’s growing hostility toward Israel and the U.S. aligns with biblical end-times prophecies.
• Other prophecies in Daniel and Revelation are often linked to modern geopolitical events involving Iran.
2. Islamic Prophecy and End-Times War
• Some Islamic eschatological views, particularly in Shia Islam (which is dominant in Iran), predict an apocalyptic war before the return of the Mahdi (the guided one).
• Some clerics in Iran see their conflict with the U.S. and Israel as part of a larger religious struggle.
3. Political and Geopolitical Forecasts
• Analysts warn that a U.S.-Iran war could trigger a larger regional or even global conflict.
• Iran has allies in Russia, China, and various proxy groups (Hezbollah, Houthis, and Shia militias in Iraq and Syria), which could escalate a war beyond a U.S.-Iran confrontation.
• Cyber warfare, missile strikes, and oil disruptions could destabilize the world economy.
4. Recent Developments and Future Risks
• Rising tensions, particularly in the Middle East, have led some to speculate about a coming war.
• The U.S. and Israel have carried out covert operations and cyberattacks against Iran’s nuclear program.
• Iran has increased its uranium enrichment, which could provoke military action from the U.S. or Israel.
Final Thoughts
While prophecy and politics often intertwine, whether war between the U.S. and Iran happens depends on diplomacy, strategic decisions, and unforeseen events. Historically, many conflicts have been predicted but did not materialize—while others emerged unexpectedly.
Over the weekend President Trump ordered a massive military operation against the small country of Yemen. Was Yemen in the process of attacking the United States? No. Did the President in that case go to Congress and seek a declaration of war against the country? No. The fact is, Yemen hadn’t even threatened the United States before the bombs started falling.
Last year, candidate Trump strongly criticized the Biden Administration’s obsession with foreign interventionism to the detriment of our problems at home. In an interview at the Libertarian National Convention, he criticized Biden’s warmongering to podcaster Tim Pool, saying, “You can solve problems over a telephone. Instead they start dropping bombs. Recently, they’re dropping bombs all over Yemen. You don’t have to do that.”
Yet once in office, Trump turned to military force as his first option. Since the Israel/Hamas ceasefire plan negotiated by President Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, Yemen has left Red Sea shipping alone. However, after Israel implemented a total blockade of humanitarian relief to citizens of Gaza last week, Houthi leaders threatened to again begin blocking Israel’s Red Sea shipping activities.
That was enough for President Trump to drop bombs and launch missiles for hours, killing several dozen Yemeni civilians – including women and children – in the process.
After the attack, Trump not only threatened much more force to be used against Yemen, but he also threatened Iran. His National Security Advisor Mike Waltz added that the US may start bombing Iranian ships in the area, a move that would certainly lead to a major Middle East war.
Like recent Presidents Bush and Obama, candidate Trump promised peace after four years of Joe Biden’s warmongering and World War III brinkmanship. There is little doubt that with our war-weary population this proved the margin of his victory. Unfortunately, as with Bush and Obama, now that he is President, he appears to be heading down a different path.
The Republican Party is gradually becoming a pro-peace, America first party, but the warmongers and neocons of the old line in the Party are not going to let go so easily. Unfortunately many of these dead-enders have found their way to senior positions in Trump’s Administration, with voices of restraint and non-intervention nearly nowhere in sight among his top tier of advisors.
To solve the Yemen problem we must understand it: Russian and Chinese ships, for example, are not being threatened because they are not enabling the Israeli demolition of Gaza. The slaughter there has been facilitated with US money and US weapons. It is the US doing Israel’s bidding both in Gaza and in the Red Sea that is painting a target on us and unnecessarily putting our troops at risk of retaliation.
The US government, starting with Biden and continuing now with Trump, seems eager to make this our war even though, as Rep. Thomas Massie pointed out over the weekend, Red Sea shipping is of minor importance to the US economy.
In a real “America first” foreign policy we would be following the Russian and Chinese lead and staying out of the conflict. It’s not our war. End US military involvement in the Middle East and our troubles disappear. It really is that simple.
Catholic archbishops, like other religious leaders, don’t have direct power in the American court system, but the Catholic Church has significant influence in legal and political matters for several reasons:
1. Legal Advocacy & Amicus Briefs – Catholic organizations, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), frequently file legal briefs on key court cases, particularly those involving religious freedom, abortion, education, and social issues.
2. Political Influence – The Catholic Church has strong lobbying efforts at both state and federal levels. Many politicians, judges, and legal professionals are Catholic or influenced by Catholic social teachings.
3. Religious Liberty Cases – Catholic institutions often challenge laws they see as infringing on religious freedom. Recent Supreme Court cases have ruled in favor of Catholic organizations regarding school funding, contraception mandates, and LGBTQ+ rights vs. religious rights.
4. Historical Institutional Presence – The Catholic Church runs many hospitals, schools, and charities, making it a major stakeholder in legal matters involving healthcare, education, and social services.
5. Judicial Appointments – A significant number of Supreme Court justices in recent history have been Catholic, including those who have shaped major decisions on abortion, religious rights, and social policy.
While Catholic archbishops themselves don’t wield direct power in courts, the Church’s legal advocacy, institutional presence, and historical influence give it considerable sway in American legal and political spheres.
A truly “non-harm” diet is challenging because almost all food production affects ecosystems, plants, and animals in some way. However, here are a few approaches that aim to minimize harm:
1. Fruititarianism: Eating only fruits, nuts, seeds, and other plant parts that can be harvested without killing the plant. For example, apples, berries, and nuts naturally fall off the plant or tree.
2. Foraging: Gathering wild foods like berries, mushrooms, and nuts without disrupting the ecosystem or harming the plants.
3. Permaculture and Regenerative Agriculture: Supporting or growing food in ways that enhance biodiversity, soil health, and ecological balance, minimizing harm to wildlife.
4. In Vitro and Lab-Grown Foods: Emerging technologies for lab-grown meats and vegetables might reduce the need for traditional agriculture and its associated harm.
5. Algae and Fungi-Based Diets: These can often be cultivated with minimal environmental impact.
While no diet is completely free of harm, these approaches aim to reduce it significantly.
Anti Deep State Party 