This Week, a Comprehensive Middle-East Update
Keep Your Eyes on Mosul
"'Look, [Trump's] not going to spend his time sitting around thinking about how he's going to prosecute Hillary Clinton, he's going to think about the future of America,' Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus told Fox News." But Trump promised, over months, to do it as president, and is not justified to change his mind based on the excuse, "I'm the president now, and haven't got time for this trivial thing." He urged people to vote for him based on the promise, and the promise breaker has already made some voters sore that they spent time in line for him. Trump, your political enemies are correct, you are an idiot. Anyone who promises things as president and breaks the promise days into the election win is an idiot first, and unworthy to be the president second.
Justice in the highest areas of the country is not trivial. If Clinton broke the law, she needs to be prosecuted to send the message that a Republican in the White House will not to tolerate such things from Democrats, or anyone else. But Trump probably has in mind to abuse the White House with his own set of questionable forms of process. It's not good enough for Trump to say, I've got to move forward to heal America, I've got no time to bother with Clinton's secretive mismanagement of the State Department. He can order Clinton's investigation, having others do it, for there is no lack of people who would love to do it, relieving him of all time in doing it himself. Already, by breaking the promise, he has wounded his own supporters. How does that heal country? Already, your political opponents are telling everyone that you are a promise breaker. Idiot. They are just waiting for you to do idiotic things, and here you did it already. They can be happy for only one thing: you are snubbing your own support base. Idiot.
I am now reading that Trump is supporting Romney first of all for secretary of state. There can only be one reason for this, to keep the Bush circle from being sore with him. Trump looks like an idiot again for even considering Romney, for before the election, he said that Romney is not competent to hold high office. Trump is the biggest political idiot I have ever seen. Not even Obama was this openly a fraud. Only Bill Clinton compares. Why should anyone trust what he says this week?
I'm going to repeat the last section of the last update here because I think it could become important (eventually, I'll remove it from the last update). If you've already read it, scroll down to the next sub-heading to skip it:
Christians and Trump
Exit polls show white evangelical voters voted in high numbers for Donald Trump, 81-16 percent, according to exit poll results. That's the most they have voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 2004, when they overwhelmingly chose President George W. Bush by a margin of 78-21 percent. Their support for Trump will likely be seen as part of the reason the GOP candidate performed unexpectedly well in Tuesday’s election, according to Five Thirty Eight.
White evangelicals are the religious group that most identifies with the Republican Party, and 76 percent of them say they are or lean Republican, according to a 2014 survey. As a group, white evangelicals make up one-fifth of all registered voters and about one-third of all voters who identify with or lean toward the GOP.
...Trump's candidacy has caused a huge divide among evangelical leaders, but evangelical voters coalesced around him as a presidential candidate, many citing his promise to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Let's face it, the bulk of Christians are voting for Trump out of utter fear of nasty Liberals intent on pushing sin into the faces of their children. Christians have no love for Trump otherwise, and he knows it. But how he reacts to the promises he made to Christians is a big deal, because Jesus stands up for them. The Middle East is not all there is for Trump to concern himself with, but the Middle East is the Rat Trap of God, and America is one of the many rats slated for it. It doesn't seem coincidental that the Republican party is ignoring the Bible-based Christian even while conservatives share many of their morals and thinking patterns.
With a Republican president who promised to undo abortion laws, having both the power of the Senate and the House on his side, there is no excuse to do nothing. The problem now is, future presidential candidates on the Republican side can expect the Christian vote just to keep the Liberals suppressed, and the Trumps of the party are predicted to become more liberal. Christians may like Fox News for the same reason under discussion, but Fox has no love for evangelicals, and will work to minimize publicity for evangelical candidates, snubbing them and even sending bad signals about them. Fox may be on-track to taking Catholics from Democrats, and, if so, Fox will become an arch enemy of Protestants of all stripes. Fox news has a steady stream of sexy images and gory headlines. It has no love for the Bible.
If we merely use a candidate who loves casinos to get an agenda done, the candidate will use the vote and not fulfill the agenda. A candidate cannot love both casinos and God. He will love the one and hate the other. But the pro-life Laura Ingrahams of the world may push Trump to act. It's one thing to vote Trump to keep the nasty Liberals in the dog house, but Laura is prepared to be his world-wide spokeswoman. Is this a good trend from religious Republicans? Doesn't Trump's very life stand opposed to Jesus? Will Laura now become stained with his clothes?
The solution: vote for Trump because you are voting for Republicans that represent your ideals, but stay clear of him as he performs his worldly agendas, and of course don't love the man just because he won the election, for in fact he did not win the election. You won it for him, with the help of Obama and Hillary.
Do we expect Jews to do the Christian will?
Who exactly is Jared Kushner? CTVNews.ca has rounded up some quick facts about the future president's favoured son-in-law.
• Kushner married Trump’s eldest daughter Ivanka Trump...The couple are raising their three young children together in the Orthodox Jewish faith.
• Kushner is the son of New York real estate mogul, Charles Kushner. He serves as the CEO of the family’s real estate and construction business, Kushner Companies, as well as publisher of the New York Observer, a Manhattan-based newspaper.
• In 2005, his father was sentenced to two years in prison for tax evasion, making illegal campaign contributions and witness intimidation. The plea deal was negotiated by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie who was working as a federal prosecutor at the time.
There has been speculation that Kushner played a role in Christie's demotion from the head of Trump’s transition team and advocated for vice president-elect Mike Pence over Christie as Trump’s running mate during the campaign. He is also said to be behind the ouster of some key allies of Christie in the transition team, including former Congressman Mike Rogers.
... • Kushner has also said that he will return to his role in the private sector. However, reports that Trump has tried to obtain top security clearance for his son-in-law to attend presidential briefings, suggests Kushner may take on a more substantial role.
Crowley said Kushner will probably become a “special adviser” to the president because nepotism laws prevent him from serving in an official capacity. “When it comes to the executive office of the president, there’s great latitude for the president to put his own advisers in place,” he said.
Did Trump tell the electorate that his advisors included this rich, New York Jew? I don't know. I hardly followed the election at all. And that's because I couldn't stomach his garbage. Try to imagine how much more sickening I view Democrat garbage. Am I happy in this world? If not for Jesus, I would be just like them (but not as rich). Hmm, "At the age of 26, Kushner purchased the office building at 666 Fifth Avenue in 2007, for a then-record price of $1.8 billion, most of it borrowed."
Trump let his Polish-Catholic campaign manager go, replacing him with Kushner. "[Kushner] was for a time seen as Trump's de facto campaign manager, succeeding Corey Lewandowski, who was fired in part on Kushner's recommendation in June 2016" Wikipedia's writer seems intent on giving Kushner much of the credit for the electoral win, but the fact is, the evangelical voting block make up a third of the whole. Note how the Lewandowski Coat above is much like the Flynn Coat, both in Trump colors, then read: "Trump was reported to have requested the top-secret security clearance for him to attend the Presidential daily intelligence briefings as his staff-level companion, along with General Mike Flynn who already has the clearance."
It's off-topic, but here is an article speaking on Flynn's secret internet connection:
Trump's first wife (who birthed Kushner's wife) has a Moravian background. I see Moravian lines to Moray as white-on-blue, the colors of the Trump, Flynn and Lewandowski Coats, but also of the McLeods, the surname of Trump's mother. Trump's grandfather was from the Rhineland area of Germany, home to many Ashkenazi Jews.
Recall that Vilnius elements trace to Dol in Vilaine, and that Dol married the line of Hugh Lupus while Flynns use the wolf in the colors of the Hugh-Lupus wolf, for it can suggest that "Flynn" is a variation of "Vilain." Of further interest is that the Cash / Cush Coats (Vilnius-related suspects) share a black-on-white chevron with Flynn-like Fallins/Fullems while the latter share the white greyhound with Fallens/Fallone's. I had found good cause to trace Dol to Doly of Poland, and while the Dol Alans do trace to Huns, the Fallen Coat looks very linkable to both Hun Coats. Hun / Mongol lore has a blue wolf, which, in colors reversed, could be the Flynn wolf.
Recalling now how Hitler's nephew could have been involved with Scheriffs of West Islip, let's add that Islips and Bloods/BLUDs both use a "lodged" stag/buck, code for Hungarian ancestry, which included Attila and his brother, BLEDa. There is a Lodge surname that shares the lion of Greys, in the colors of the Hun dogs, one of them a GREYhound. Lodge's are in the colors of the Blois dragons, and both surnames were first found in the same place, along with Clare's who use triple chevrons in colors reversed from the same of BLEDs/BLES'...making "Blois" suspect as a term from "Bleda." Note the DUBLE variation of Bleds, for Lodge's use the so-called DOUBLE tressure border.
Hitler was supported by Catholics. But, surely, Trump cannot be a Nazi element along with the Jewish Kushners, can he? Well, maybe he can even if Kushner's not. Hitler's demons had men of Jewish descent, believe it or not, and Hitlers are themselves suspect as Bauer / Rothschild liners. But there were different sorts of Jews in Germany, some from Khazars, others not, and perhaps one camp wished to exterminate the other. Even if Trump's blood is derived from a Nazi past, he could himself be uninterested. Remember, Cosners looked like they can be using a version of the Scherf Coat, and Islips share the stag-with-holly-BUSH of Maxwells. If Trump hires Mitt Romney, I might even keep in mind that the Bush's feigned being uninterested in Trump. Let's add that the Flynn wolf is in the colors of the Scarf wolf heads. What's going on?
In consideration that a Scheriff family of West Islip (Long Island) ended up at the edge of HAYDen Lake (Idaho), headquarters for Aryan Nations, while Trump's father died in New HYDE Park, Long Island, see Wikipedia: "In 1715, Dongan's estate was sold to George Clarke (who was Secretary of the Provence of New York). He named it Hyde Park in honor of his wife, Ann Hyde." It just so happens that a mansion at Hayden Lake was Clark House, named after a F. Lewis Clark) who went boating (early 20th century) with the German Kaiser.
I CANNOT BELIEVE MY EYES. My digging into Clark House (a couple of years ago) had me believing that the ancestry of a long-time emailer, with Covert surname (she doesn't like me anymore), was related to Mr. Clark of Clark House. She had married the brother of a woman whom herself married Mr. Scheriff of West Islip. On "Google's search page for New Hyde Park NY," there is a map showing COVERT Avenue smack in New Hyde Park!! Amazing coincidence.
Mrs. Covert doesn't like me anymore because I am telling this story online, which makes she and her ex-husband look like members of Aryan Nations. But I have never accused her of being so, while I have entertained her ex (not a Covert) as being such. Besides, I see a bigger story here than merely members of the low-level Aryan Nations. I see the Long Island Nazis in the White House, CIA, etc. And that's my main story that God may have provided for readers, by having Mrs. Covert contact me in the first place. Clarks are expected to be a branch of the Clerk variation of Clairs. In case it applies: "Covert Avenue was named for Johannes Covert, who had a large farm in the area in the 1700’s and 1800’s. About 1912, the street was renamed Seneca Avenue." This Covert Avenue is in Ridgewood, Queens, not far from Long Island (itself part of Queens).
Both of Trump's parents died at the Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde Park. Why the Jewish hospital? Here's Trump's ancestry:
I was surprised to find that there is a genealogy of a Johannes Covert, born in Long Island, leading up to a Catherine Covert, born in roughly 1900 in Babylon, Long Island, exactly the location of West Islip. The Mrs. Covert who was emailing with me was nearly Catherine; her name is so close to it that she may have been born Catherine. But she was born about 1955. Unfortunately, Catherine of about 1900 has no children listed:
By scrolling back from the page above a few generations, through the male line (i.e. starting at her father, Joseph Covert), you will come to her g-g-grandmother, Sarah PULLIS (born 1795), much like POLZl (the final 'l' is a suffix), the surname of Hitler's mother.
The Clark connection to Mrs. Covert was as per a Julia Faye Covert (born in or very close to 1920) listed also as Julia Faye Clark due to her husband, Edward Clark. Mrs. Covert has a daughter, Julia. And Julia Faye Covert is listed beside Riverside, California, where Mrs. Covert married the husband that I mentioned above. Julia Faye is of age either to be the mother or grandmother of Mrs. Covert.
Neo-Nazi running for office in Riverside County October 19, 2010 | By Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times
Political newcomer Jeff Hall has run a discreet campaign trying to unseat an incumbent on an obscure Riverside County water board. He hasn't posted any signs, didn't show up to a candidates forum and lists no occupation on the November ballot. But Hall is well-known as a white supremacist. As California director of the National Socialist Movement ? the nation's largest neo-Nazi group ? Hall has helped lead demonstrations in Riverside and Los Angeles, where white supremacists waved swastika flags, chanted "white power" and gave stiff-armed Nazi salutes surrounded by hundreds of counterprotesters.
There is a possibility here that Catherine Covert, born about 1905, was closely related to Julia Faye Covert, born in/about 1920. Catherine's brother (Raymond E Covert) is said to be born in 1904, and he's listed before her, suggesting an older brother. Neither are listed with their own children, but both were born in Babylon, and can therefore be expected to have moved to Post Falls, Idaho, where Mrs. Covert lived with her husband married in Riverside. As I said, Mr. Scheriff from Babylon married a sister of Mrs. Covert's husband, and the mother of the two siblings has an address listing (online) in/beside Post Falls.
Back to Johannes Covert in the genealogy (born about 1725), I'd like to say that, when writing on this topic in the 3rd update of May, 2015, I had cause to suspect the Powell surname, and here I find Catherine Powell, wife of Johannes' son.
Mrs. Covert said to me that her father was descended from kaiser Coffert, himself either associated with or related to the Hohenstaufens or Hohenzollerns (I forget which). As F Lewis Clark of Clark House was a good friend of kaiser Wilhelm II it suggests that Edward Clark, who married Mrs. Covert's mother / grandmother, was related to F. Lewis Clark. The latter disappeared (reported as a suicide but I think he skipped out on his wife for someone else) 1914, after Edward's birth. He disappeared in California, where I expect the birth of Mrs. Covert.
"Wilhelm knew his home had inspired his friends [i.e. Clark and his wife, Winifred] to build something similar and had a globe of the world made in 1909 as a housewarming gift for Winifred. He gave Lewis a cannon."
Why was there a Covert genecology above, tracking the family from the 1700s into the 1900s? Was it an important family? None of the women who enter the tree as wives have such comprehensive genealogies. Theory: Wilhelm II was of the Coffert bloodline, and related to the Coverts of Long Island / Ridgewood. After befriending F. Lewis Clark, the latter came to befriend these New York Coverts, and he was responsible, somehow, for their moving to Post Falls, just a dog's walk from Clark House. Note that the New York Coverts list no more children as per the early 1900s, for this is a Long-Island genealogy webpage, where we expect no more children listed if the family moved away.
More theory: the New York Coverts had kin in California, which can explain why Lewis Clark had business there at the time he disappeared (allegedly, his hat alone was found floating in the waters off a peer in Santa Barbara). Still theorizing: one of the California Coverts married a relative of Lewis Clark, making this Edward Clark suspect as Mrs. Covert's father. Instead of taking on the Clark name, Mrs. Covert decided to go with the Covert name. This is the best I can do with the information at hand. Or, Edward Clark was none other than Lewis Clarke by an alias. If even any of this is correct, one can assume that Adolf Hitler was related to Miss Pullis seen above, or even that Hitler was a Covert somewhere down the line, for this can explain why his nephew moved to Long Island.
Below is another Johannes Covert, born in Flatbush, Long Island, about the same time as the Johannes above. This Johannes (looks Dutch) was the father of Catherine Covert. When we follow the line from Catherine's brother, Bourgon, to the next Bourgon Covert, he marries Miss Coshun, like the New York Kushners married by Trump's daughter.
When we follow Johannes son, Lucas, born in Great Neck, Long Island, his son is another Johannes, and he's born in SENECA County, New York, and while that's the name that renamed Covert Avenue in Ridgewood, a Johannes Covert is said to have named that street not long after the time of this younger Johannes Covert, who's brothers, Isaac and Abram, suggest a Jewish / Khazar family. A sister of Johannes is shown as Teunis In honor of Tunisians?), a name seen in the genealogy of the other Long-Island Coverts. This family spread out to neighboring New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
I'd like to record William Covert (born 1753) of Amityville...in Suffolk country where West Islip / Babylon is located. Was he a Wilhelm liner?
The page below claims that the first Coverts in New York were Dutch, and used Coever as a variation. Houseofnames lists Coevers with Corfs/Corvers and other such variations, but the Scherff-like Cerf(f) variation seems applicable to the discussion. They are traced to Henricus Corf in the 13th century of Westphalia. The page below also shows "Corwin", and houseofnames has that surname. As Corvins use fretty in colors reversed from the Cotta fretty, and as I trace Cotta's to Cuthberts, first found in the same place as Corwins, it tends to speak for itself on a Covert trace back to Julius Caesar's mother (Aurelia Cotta). I did say that Caesars developed into the Khazars along with a line from Caiaphas.
Note the "Se je n" motto phrase of Corwins, like the Segans/Sagans that share the salamander-in-flames with Julians. Note that Sigens may be using the Zollern Coat, which was used by HohenZOLLERNs too (the latter ruled Germany until Hitler and provided at least one German emperor of Rome). Why did they call themselves Caesar-like kaisers?
The Covert page above lists Coversons, who bring up Coverts/Cofferts. "Coert" is also on the page. It never gets to the 20th century, however.
Coverts were suspect with the namers of Caiaphas before I knew the Cavii at Lissus. Since then, Lissus was traced to Lys'/Lisse's, and they happen to use a fleur-de-lys in half the colors of the giant one of Coevers/Corfs/Cerfs. Corvins come up as "Kerwen," and a third Kerwen Coat shares the raven with Peters while using a "patrie" motto term. The raven-using Corbetts / Corbins come to mind. All three Peter surnames trace to Peter Pollock, suspect as the ancestor of Hitler's mother. Peters have already traced well to Polesdons that list Pullis'. Is it out of the question that Trump could be an agent of the high-level American band of Nazi's three generations after Hitler?
Is This the Anti-Christ Administration?
I loath the idea of falsely presenting any individual / group as the potential Revelation snake, but I have made it my job for years to watch out, to guess who it will be before most of his prophetic events come to pass. For a long while, I had updates on James Mattis highlighted in blue, in the Iraq-Updates index page, to indicate that he could become part of the anti-Christ entity. I removed that blue highlight when Obama fired him, and when I no longer viewed Obama himself as a potential False Prophet. Obama never did turn on the religion, anyway, as I expect of the False Prophet. The question now is whether Romney will turn a religious face to his politics, but let's first wait to see whether Trump's people appoint him (for all we know, Trump may not even be making these decisions). If God wants to punish the Bush circle, I can see that the Bush circle should be part of end-time events. It was George Bush Jr. who created the Israeli-Roadmap concept, and I see Romney as expected to continue that agenda. The Roadmap is anti-Israeli, what one could expect of Americanized Nazi elements, though of course the Bush's give little hint of being anti-Israeli. The Roadmap is therefore a covert attempt to destroy Israel.
If I understand satanism from the Biblical perspective, it's anyone who rejects Jesus. My understanding has no problems: Jesus unveiled demons in our midst like it was never known before, and demons infiltrate human bodies and minds, seeking to control unto world control, and this means that those who consider themselves normal are apt to be influenced by demonic impulses and voices in their heads. It's not me who's extreme when I pray to Jesus to guard me from demons; the freaks are those who gladly do the will of demons, and they are on the "left," which is where you will find most media that claim to be in the normal "middle." Are demons after me? Of course. Are they seeking to bring my mind into erroneous points of view? Of course. Demons are idiots, the best that creation has to offer, and they make idiots out of humans. We are wise if we acknowledge this, and guard ourselves as best we can. The best guard is devotion to Jesus, not just a Catholic-painting image of Jesus we have in our minds, but devotion to his Words living in you. The way to get the words living in you is to love them; but if you don't love them, neither can they live in you. When you value the truth He speaks, the words remain in your heart, and become your guide, your wisdom, your personality. The aim of the Word is to make us like Jesus, so that we will all be one with Him, like members of an international body not in conflict. We know no skin color. We are the true united nations.
Just because some white-supremacist groups espouse a form of Christianity does not make them Biblical in practice. The Father chooses to grant the gift of faith in Jesus to certain people. The choice from the Father cannot be based on nothing. My belief is that the Father watches people as demons seek to control their behavior, and he does not chose those who embrace the behavior of demons, but instead chooses those who do battle with (resist) demonic impulses as well as showing potential for behavior pleasing to God. That person will receive a revelation of Jesus, because the Father draws that person to Jesus, and the Holy Spirit then accepts that person as newly born into the Kingdom of God. That's the New Testament in a nutshell. The media bosses are so far from this understanding that they are way out in ice-cold extremism. They are the goons, the followers and supporters of lying fools and rabid Liberals, the wayward vagabonds, rebellious sons of the devil. And Trump just called the New York Times a "world jewel" after slandering the same Times while seeking election. I am starting to wonder what chief demon abides in Trump's mind.
Trump is himself a Liberal jerk. "Jerk" means a jerking thing, unstable, rattling from side to side, never knowing if he will spin out of control to a fatal crash. If that's the president you wanted, Christians, there you have one fat jerk. He doesn't even care that his own wife married him for the money, because she certainly didn't marry him for him. Trump, you've dropped your pants already, and what a sorry, hideous ass you are showing.
During the 2012 presidential election, Trump called the Electoral College “a disaster for a democracy” and said it had made “a laughingstock out of our nation.”
But after he defeated Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, Trump tweeted that the Electoral College is “actually genius” because it “brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play.&rdquo
It reminds me of when Jesus spoke of a certain individual having the lie as his natural nature. He was speaking of the devil. Someone who lies by nature becomes schizoid. They pretend to be much, only to prove to be very small, or like a crash scene. Steady truth makes for bigness, like a beacon on a hill that brings wanderers toward salvation.
So, what is more important to America than cleaning up the Liberal camp of its stench? Trump promised to drain away the slime. It's what Republicans have been dreaming of for decades. It brought extra Republicans to vote in spite of many saying "never Trump." The Israeli peace deal? Is that more important to Trump? Al Jazeera is taking every opportunity to paint Trump, in the Middle East, as a clown, and Trump is providing every opportunity to look like one. "US President-elect Donald Trump has said he would 'love' to reach a peace deal between Israel and Palestine, adding that he would appoint his [Jewish] son-in-law as a Middle East envoy and help broker a deal after he takes charge at the White House." Yes, but what's the son-in-law up to? What are his positions? Is Israeli policy now going to be hijacked by a young man the electorate did not elect? Kushner who?
From now on, everytime I hear the word, Trump, I think train wreck. The law forbids Trump from having his son-in-law on his team, but Trump doesn't even try to hide that the son-in-law will be on his team. Officially or unofficially part of the government, what's the difference? Is this the new American trend, nepotism? Actually, it's not new. Rothschilds have practiced nepotism in politics for a long time; bloodline-loving Freemasonry is a form of nepotism.
"'I would love to be the one who made peace with Israel and the Palestinians, that would be such a great achievement,' Trump told the New York Times on Tuesday." Ahh, Trump basking in a limelight, more important than fulfilling his promises to Christians. After all, fulfilling promises means that he'll need to work, fight hard, but fat cats would rather have none of that. Well, if Trump thinks that the presidency is going to be a pleasurable train ride, he's just like the false-promise Obama (he really hates work). The latter's train wreck produced president Trump in the first place, but it was also thanks to idiots steering the Republican chu-chu, including the people over at Fox News. The idiots grabbed the wheel of the Republican party just as soon as Christians had temporary -- very temporary - control of it. If there is a thing the devil will not tolerate, it's Biblical Christians behind the wheel. The idiots bumped the Christians aside with their fat rumps, without saying, "excuse me," and here we are with merely Trump and his broken promises.
The Word of God plants different ideas into our heads, and teaches that the devil is in the Liberal camp as a lover of money, a liar, a thief...just like Trump. Something in the Republican party convinced the voters to choose a liberal for their own president, and that Liberal put on a conservative mask, and won. So now what? The silver lining is that we don't need to hear the Democrats attack a Christian for the next four years; instead, they will attack one who thinks and behaves just like themselves.
Here's a glimpse of the bottom line: "On the issue of torture, Mr. Trump suggested he had changed his mind about the value of waterboarding after talking with James N. Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general, who headed the United States Central Command." Everything Trump promised is subject to change for now pleasing members of his own team. But this should not be permitted as a law of the land. A president's election should be subject to repeal if he breaks his promise to the voters; the presidency then goes to the vice-president. In that way, candidates will speak less promises they never intend to keep. Trump does not deserve to be the president. Did the people elect Mattis? Did they elect Kushner? There should only be one roadmap for a president, the very plans he laid down in getting elected. If he does not keep to those plans, out on his butt from the White House he goes. Yes, there should be opportunity for a party to get rid of the man they elected, long before the four years are up, before he does the party further damage, if he does not keep to his promises.
On climate change, Mr. Trump refused to repeat his promise to abandon the international climate accord reached last year in Paris, saying, “I’m looking at it very closely.” Despite the recent appointment to his transition team of a fierce critic of the Paris accords, Mr. Trump said that “I have an open mind to it” and that clean air and “crystal clear water” were vitally important.
The climate-change scam is not supposed to be about clean air and clean water. It's supposed to be about the doomsday scenario painted by the global-change scammers. One can oppose the nutbars and embrace clean air and clean water. Clean-air and clear-water programs are not new, but the climate-change scam is new, and it's got a secret agenda that we are not being made privy to. Trump promised to resist that movement, and he's now saying "he has an open mind" i.e. we don't know which way he's going to go.
Let us not take on the personality of Trump; his own mother should be ashamed of him. "Trump has backed slashing environmental rules, taking that message to West Virginia earlier this year, when he pledged that the state's miners, as well as those in Ohio and Pennsylvania, 'are going to start to work again, believe me.'...Ebinger added that Trump seems to be 'pandering to coal miners.'" Believe Trump? He sounds as though he did all his homework and had strongly decided to bring more coal to the country. In reality, he did no homework; he just said what was expedient for getting more votes, and it was sheer fabrication. This is disgusting.
I think I have made my point, that Trump's nature is to lie for selfish motives, and as such his spirit is likely dogged by demonic spirits. This is not amazing; it's very common place. Ask you own sinful nature. I have mine, and you have yours. If you think you're squeaky clean, you must be a blind Liberal. But Jesus brings us up out of demonic influence because we read His Word, and the demons tend to run from us when we talk up a storm on Jesus, when we go to Bible studies and chat the Biblical issues over with other believers. The demons just can't stand it. Your spirit then becomes cleaner, and the Clean Spirit of God is more noticeable rather than the filthy spirits that will otherwise infest your thoughts / dreams from time to time. The population of the world today is such that, probably, there are not enough demons to be continually with everyone at the same time. But I'm sure they float around, person to person, maybe the same people over and over again.
The way to judge a man, whether he's good, is not by his military credentials, but by his view of Jesus, for Jesus is the standard for Good. People don't despise Jesus for his evil. They despise Christians for their right-ness. People don't want to cling to rightness; they want to "get ahead" using "means," and Jesus-religion flies in the face of this. America, "land of opportunity," is also the land of money-loving God haters who have military-based designs for all nations. The world is their market place, and so they wish to till it, cultivate it, make it grow money better. Trump made it very "rich," but for him, it is harder for a rich man to desire the kingdom of God than for a Republican elephant to go through the eye of a needle. Give an ambitious, immoral, rich man power, and he becomes more like king Herod than the typical Christian. If Christians feel comfortable waving Trump's banner around, I've got to worry. Trump has only a few short years before he will find the end of his earthly life. He is a fool to reject Christians now.
He owns stock in more than 500 companies, including an oil pipeline inside the U.S. Judging from what we know of Trump's character, isn't it pretty plain that he will help his own financial self as president? A man without morals cannot do otherwise. It takes a man disciplined in morality to do the right thing whether or not it favors his own financial empire. A moral man knows not to build a financial empire. Trump's not yet finished building his, and he's now thinking that the best is yet to come as a result of four glorious years of decision-making. It's not a wonder he hasn't got time for Hillary.
The Republican victory is not about what Trump can do for the world, for the world's condition is hopeless and cannot be cured, will not be cured. The victory is about how Trump will ruin the world further. Even if he stifles the global-warming trolls, whose grubby hands are in our pockets, and even if he forms a partnership with Russia to undo ISIS, the world is still too-far gone for a cure. Unless the world accepts Jesus, there is no cure, and we have witnessed the fact that the world will not respect Jesus, let alone embrace him. But to have an American president who promised Christians a moral standing in the White House, only to betray them in the first week of his victory, that's another reason that the world will remain hopeless, and grow worse under Trump. World-class peoples, including Russian leaders, are very happy to see Trump betray Christianity.
So what if ISIS is defeated? There are more foreigners dying from drunk drivers than from ISIS plots. How will the world become better when ISIS is subdued in Iraq? Is this the thing to be concerned about in order to save the world? The West is delusional, creating an ISIS monster that isn't, rebels seeking to form their own nation. It's all been seen before, and they have some power only because Obama helped to provide them with money and weaponry. The Middle East is not about ISIS; it's about Western intrusion into Iraq and Syria, and this will explode into the faces of those globalists who are not about to cease their plots. There you see Russia standing in the way, the very makings of Armageddon. Here we are. History has arrived to the Armageddon scenario. Did Jesus' enemies laugh at one time as per the prophecy of a world burned to a crisp? Not anymore. This world is about Jesus; He alone will survive as ruler. Bank on it, learn to conform to it. Submit to it, be a team player with Jesus.
I don't know that Putin's administration has any serious plans to undermine nations on its border, to infiltrate them politically in order to install pro-Russian governments. But I do know that the West is infiltrating those same nations to install pro-NATO / pro-West governments. There is absolutely nothing wrong in Putin wanting pro-Russian governments on Russia's border, providing that he doesn't seek to sway the election results in unacceptable ways. There is nothing wrong with telling the electorate of a neighboring country that friendliness toward Russia will have certain pay-backs, and letting the voters decide, providing that Russia doesn't break promises after the election. I have been following Russian news for years, and cannot imagine Putin being as idiotic as Trump is now being. Putin's popularity in Russia was not won by breaking promises, speaking lies to those who voted him in. Already, Putin sees Trump as an idiot.
When I try to gauge the Russia-versus-West conflict, to see who's mostly in the wrong, I come down on the West. The best way I can justify my position is to paint a situation where Russians are infiltrating the Canadian, Mexican and Cuban governments in order to get pro-Russian, anti-American governments installed, and then building missile launchers on the Canadian border roughly at Ontario. If we think this is wrong, then we ought to sympathize with the Russians at this time. We should at least understand why the Russians have cause for alarm. The way that Putin is handling the intrusiveness of the West is to openly say that he wants friendship, but to rattle the nuclear saber if the West doesn't accept the friendship. Russian media has been very aggressive and offensive in opposition to the West ever since Obama led an anti-Putin campaign in his last years. I imagine that the West would do exactly the same -- offers of peace while making threats -- if Russia were infiltrating Cuba, Mexico and Canada without an end in sight.
Instead of backing off, the EU has just passed a law for responding tit-for-tat to Russian media lashing out at the West. There is a daily pouring-out of wrath in Russian media to tarnish the West. But, again, this has been the situation since the West has refused to scrap the missiles scheduled for Poland, and by now probably other nations on Russia's border. The Russians are seeking to make light of Western hypocrisies in order to do its part in keeping border countries from becoming Western friendly, and this can be deemed an act of self-survival because the West is in fact being aggressively hostile and intrusive. Like the American Liberals, the West puts its own spin on the truth, telling only half but leaving out the rest. When Russia reacted in Georgia and the Ukraine, to take pro-Russian elements under its wings, it did so as a result of aggression from pro-Western movements seeking to make Russian enemies. It seemed impossible to know who started the war in Georgia, with both sides blaming it on the other, but we do know that, in the Ukraine, the pro-Western leader was removed using the typical Obama-coup method seen in Egypt, for example. The Obama-coup method involves sliming the leader, calling him a dictator, and this was even being tried against Putin.
The West needs to be warned. The West needs a different approach, for the course that the EU just took, to create a media war against Russia, is not going to produce the best results. I realize that Europe is not trusting of Russia, but thus far, since Reagan, Russia has not invaded a border nation, in a vacuum, to make it Russian by force. Until then, NATO and Europe have no business infiltrating Russia's neighbors politically in order to turn them ant-Russian. An impartial judge between the two entities, if the purpose is to keep the peace, would not permit Western intrusion into the nations on Russia's border. That is aggression, Putin is correct, it is aggression. Putin has the right to protect his people from this NATO mole. Westerners think that infiltrating Russia's neighbors is a great thing because it weakens the last vestiges of Sovietism. But this is short-sighted. Sovietism can evolve into patriotic movements that can hit the nuclear button just as fast as old Soviets.
Russia was docile when Sovietism fell. There were no signs of serious Soviet backlashes. Russia didn't look like a monster anymore, but the West moved in, anyway, to do to the Soviets what the Soviets had done to Europe. Was that a wise thing? I don't know. Here we are today with the fruits thereof. Here's a Russian headline this week: "Journalists Slam EU Parliament Resolution as 'Part of War Against Russia'." Here's a headline from the words of a Russian general: "If US Can't or Won't Fight Terrorists, They Should 'Stop Getting in the Way' [of Russia]." The latter's article concerns this: "US State Department spokesman Mark Toner urged other countries not to provide support for Russian tankers shipping fuel to the Russian aviation group in Syria" The West is at this time sliming the Russians, claiming that Russians with Assad are slaughtering people senselessly. I frankly don't believe it.
Where is this Western attitude going to lead, folks? Russia is not prepared to lay itself down to let the West walk over its back. What will happen if the West simply continues on this fightin' path? How will it get the Russian media to stop bad-mouthing the West? Here's Putin's reaction to the EU resolution calling for a media battle: "Vladimir Putin commented on the matter by pointing out that the document indicates a degradation of democracy in the West. Praising Sputnik and RT for their work, the president expressed hope that real media restrictions would not follow." Nope, Putin is not backing down. If this superpower situation is demon versus demon hoping for the destruction of mankind, let's at least acknowledge that the West is in fact a demon. It is the Biblical position to take. The West has proven itself to be demonic in its social path; why should its foreign-policy spirit be any different?
How possibly can the idiot, the new American president, solve the problem when the Russians can't trust him? No one is following Trump closer than the Russians. The Russians are talking about him in meetings with military people, all seeking to figure how his mind ticks, and they have just seen that Trump is a liar. What now? Will Trump repent? Does he know how?
The way that Russia views this EU resolution is the exercising of an excuse to do its own bad-mouthing, the excuse being Russia's bad-mouthing. But Putin doesn't view the Russian media as bad-mouthing as much as he views it as a survival strategy sending out the truth on the matter, or at least the Russian side of the truth that Western media leaves out. You can see here how the media is a fundamental part of war, and so God will hold the media responsible for outbreak in wars. The Godless never know when to stop doing evil because they don't acknowledge it. Is there anyone in the word today that bad-mouths as badly as American-president wanna-bees? The American election just put on a spectacular display of bad-mouthing, all carried gladly my media, and topped off with Trump's promise-breaking finale.
Am I guilty of bad-mouthing when I call Trump an idiot? No, because he is the promise breaker, and I the news man describe that reality as idiotic. I think everyone will agree that breaking a string of promises days after an election win is, at the very least, idiotic. Moreover, I am not calling Trump an idiot by use of an evil motive. I was hoping that he would keep his promises; I did not rail against him just because I wanted to see him ruined. That would be an evil smear, a thing that Western leaders know very well. Trump is an idiot secondly because he gave life to bruised Democrats, who can already see the White House back in Liberal hands for 2020. Trump has loudly trumpeted his stupidity predicted by Democrats before the election win. If the election were held all over again right now, Trump would be licking his wounds. That's how stupid he is, and how unreliable his Middle-East agenda is to be viewed. No one will know whether he's telling the truth anymore, including the Russians who praised his win.
My concern in this section is the prophecy, in Daniel 7, of Rome's burning at the very Last Day. The Rome of Daniel 2 and 7 is not the city alone, but the empire. Daniel himself tells that Rome, the empire, will become weaker when its peoples / nations become divided, but even in that state, which must be Europe as we know it, it is still regarded as the Roman beast of Daniel 7, the one that becomes burned. How does one burn Europe? Not with a match.
When the Obama administration talked about a re-set button with Russia, we were not told that they meant re-setting the Cold-War nuclear button. But here we are. Just a few years after the re-set button, the other idiot set America on a path to a new Cold War. If he were not an idiot, he would not have done this. I think that everyone will agree with me that a president who takes the world back to the Cold War, and then blames Russia for it, is worse than an idiot. His eight years will go out with the fight against Russia on the verge of raging anger. Even the idiot, Trump, sees cause for toning down the Russian rhetoric. What hope can there be when the voters elect idiot after idiot, never learning? And the buck for this situation stops with the influential media.
When we turn to Revelation 17, which can be gleaned as the extending of Daniel 7, we see a curious thing. The ugly woman, said to be the city that rules over all the kings of the earth, which was Rome when Revelation was penned, is forming an alliance with the end-time anti-Christ, yet, during the alliance, the anti-Christ turns on her and burns her with fire. If we had a choice in picking whether the anti-Christ will be a Russian or an American, we would probably chose a Russian, for as things now stand, we can't conceive of an American nuclear attack on Europe. Such an attack seems harder yet to imagine while there is an American-EU alliance. But if we imagine a Russia-EU alliance made solely for the purpose of staving off an Armageddon-like scenario, which amounts to a fake alliance of momentary convenience, I can envision the Russians sending a nuclear catastrophe into Europe as pay back for the situation now the reality as I speak. Or, if we don't think that it will be mere pay-back, then let's view it as Russia's decision to survive, not trusting Europe, and taking an opportune moment, with a Russian at Europe's helm, to ruin her terribly. Obviously, such a situation isn't going to take place in the coming year.
Sputnik is saying that the EU resolution is evidence that Russian media is doing an effective job in bad-mouthing the West. Indeed, this is now the course for the foreseeable future. Let's see how Trump changes it, or fuels it.
Reuters is once again spreading the message that I cannot believe, that Assad / Putin are bombing hospitals. You can't get more slimy than this. The UN wants to send aid packages into Syria, with Assad's consent, even though the aid will go to his enemies now losing the current battle. So, the UN sends the anti-Assad fighters aid when they are losing, and Reuters, in the meantime, makes the Assad side look bad for resisting the entry of the aid. So, the way the West wants things, they get to bad-mouth Putin, but Russian media does not get the right to defend Putin. This is exactly how American Liberals want things, all media in favor of bad-mouthing Republicans, with Republicans remaining silent in return. Free speech is now in the business of fueling conflicts. It's so much fun to fling slime...until the bombs start flying.
In principle, the West has no opposing argument when the Russians want to involve themselves in the Middle East, for the West engaged itself grossly in the Middle East. Why can't Russia have even more justification since it is right beside the Middle East? I realize that Russia supports a Syria that supports an anti-Israeli Iran that supports other anti-West nations. But the West needs to accept the fact that Russia is a nuclear power not to be treated in the way that it's now being treated. Some other angle is needed where the two don't find confrontation, and this is Obama's sin, to go into Syria with slime against Assad, dragging Russia into Syria too. Hillary was a part of this bloody, hideous mess. Not many weeks ago, Washington accused Russia / Assad of bombing an aid convoy.
The Russian foreign ministry: "We have repeatedly declared that no anti-European propaganda is carried out from the Russian side. Russia is keen for the EU to be a united, stable, and predictable partner, with which we could develop equal and mutually beneficial cooperation." But the NATO-West does not want this partnership. It broke down Russia's gas deal with Europe at the same stroke of turning the Ukraine against Russia. That was in itself a very big deal in Putin's circle, the beginning of anti-West animosity in Russian media such as Sputnik. We can be sure that Putin called for it. Just try to imagine how much good for world peace the Russian pipeline into Europe would have been, giving both sides reason to stay calm. Instead, the West attempted to dislodge Putin from his very secure political position, and the Russians on the streets have understood it all because their media have made them understand it to no end in sight. The natural reaction of Europe is to destroy the Russian media because the destruction of Putin needs the Russian on the street to knife him. In other words, the West is dreaming if it wants to act alone to change the way Russians think about Putin. We are seeing that the dastardliness of the West has limits, weaknesses.
The EU has just voted to get into gear a movement wherein it has its own army as an alternative to NATO. Just think about the situation as it stands, with NATO hoping that the EU army will not form (why not?). NATO is an American army that has European nations partially funding it. NATO is therefore an American tool to control Europe's destiny, in case of war, we are to believe, but in the meantime NATO has rights to operate in Europe to undo and antagonize Russia, and it helps greatly if the Americans can create false spy reports insisting that Russians are hoping to topple east-European nations. How do the American tax payers feel about their money going to "protect" the EU. Protect from what? Do we really think that Russia is about to invade Europe for to take it over? According to NATO, yes. In order to have justification for its existence, NATO needs an endless string of accusations against Russia. NATO's worst enemy at this time is European reconciliation with Russia.
There has got to be something sinister about NATO if it seeks to destroy the progress of an EU army. Doesn't Europe deserve to have its own army, commanded by the EU alone? NATO says, no, American must control Europe's defense. Isn't there something wrong with the United States if it says to Europe, "We won't help you out militarily unless we are in charge of the decisions"? What kind of a friend is that? "Unless we control, you're just going to have to die. Tough luck, EU."
John Bolton, Trump's foreign-policy chief until his election, is pro-NATO while Trump claimed to be spelling the end of NATO prior to his election. Do we see yet another broken promise by Trump? Who's he going to have left on his side that actually voted for him? This Trump will have friends in the very circles that he opposed while getting elected. Trump, the schizoid president.
"European Council President Donald Tusk said on Thursday that he expected the European Union to agree on a renewal of economic sanctions against Russia before summit of the bloc's leaders he would chair in mid-December.(Reuters)" After Russia begged Bush to scrap the missiles in Poland, Russia started to announce and advertise it's own military prowess, to be considered as warning signs. But the West has not taken these signs with any seriousness. The West feels comfortable taking the conflict to this point we now see. But what happens next in this disagreement? The expected, of course: "The Russian Defense Ministry confirmed media reports about the relocation of Iskander-M [missiles] to the Kaliningrad region [east Baltic sea]. According to official representative of the military department, Igor Konashenkov, 'no one has made a big secret out of the transportation of the systems.' According to him, one Iskander system was specifically 'exposed' to US reconnaissance satellites." It's tit-for-tat. So long as NATO won't back off, Russia is decidedly going to aim missiles at Europe.
NATO's reaction? Is NATO backing off? In an article out this week: "Nato has accused Russia of 'aggressive military posturing' following reports that it has deployed anti-ship missiles in its westernmost Baltic region...Nato said the move 'does not help to lower tensions or restore predictability to our relations'...the RIA news agency quoted Russian defence committee chairman Viktor Ozerov as saying Iskanders and S-400 surface-to-air missiles were deployed in Kaliningrad to counter a planned US missile defence shield in eastern Europe...[John Kirby's blaming of Russia] brought a stinging rebuke from the Russian defence ministry, which said that 'all recent threats to European security' were a consequence of US military policy." There you have another example of NATO being the responsible party, yet blaming Russia as such. The Russians are not so daft that they can't see NATO's hard-headedness, and this scares the Russians. The West seems truly to be seeking Russia's demise. This is a war between the U.S. and Russia, with Europeans caught in the middle who have no power to curb the actions of their demented leaders. In the end times, God will allow the leaders to become demented. We are seeing this everywhere, and the election of Trump is just one example.
What will Trump do if Russians start to oppose his will in regards to NATO or Syria? It's impossible to predict what a demented mind will do. Demons creep. They influence decisions. They soak into minds like water into deadwood. Ask the anti-Christ about that. The right thing for NATO is to back off from Russia, but this is not the will of the money-sucking Western globalists. Russia poses no threat to the invasion of European nations. As the article says, Russia has been threatening to put missiles in Kaliningrad for a decade. It doesn't sound as though Russia is in a hurry to invade Europe. It sounds as though Russia is wanting NATO to back off. A couple of months ago, "President Putin suspended an agreement with America to reduce stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium." Way to go, NATO. The BBC writer, demented, is falsely portraying Putin as one seeking to make the West respect him, as in fear him, as though Putin is a steely dictator. The West is clearly leading the world to an Armageddon scenario, and the media will play its part to voice the schemes of demented globalists. If they were not demented, they would back off. The decision to attack Russian media is a gauge, indicating that the majority, or leaders, of Europeans have decided to do the NATO thing.
In Israel, Arabs are reportedly setting Israel into flames in various locations simultaneously. Don't speak this too loudly, or Arabs in the West might get the same idea.
If you're interested in the souring situation between the EU and Turkey, which probably involves an American-backed coup, see below. In the meantime, Turkey, which ruined its relationship with Russia hoping for closer ties with the West, is now going back to Russia, or is it?:
Here's what seems to be a true picture of the complicated struggles between several players in northern Syria at this moment:
The article above tends to portray the United States as the least involved. It has Syria and Russia in control of the situation, ISIS on the way out, and the Turkish-Kurd war fomenting. My take is that the U.S., whether it's getting along with Turkey or not, is wanting Turkey to take the al-Bab area (Syria) so as to pass weapons to anti-Assad forces. The Syrians and Russians are resisting this Turkish advance into Syria, but Russia needs to play it cool in order to keep Turkey friendly for future prospects. In contrast, the Syrians are using zero tolerance. Turkey has just announced that it will not go into Aleppo to alter the course of Syrian victory there. This is what the coup against Erdogan has accomplished, a Turkish leader making his own decisions apart from Western influence, and this is giving Syria the victory in Aleppo. To put this in other words, Obama has stabbed himself. Is there anything that he does right? I don't think the Turkish leader would have accused the United States of backing the coup if it were not true. Turkey lost much by that accusation, but then the failed coup made Turkey aware that the U.S. is his enemy. This has been a real game-changer in Syria.
Still, Erdogan and Obama have been on speaking terms, believe it or not. That's because Obama badly needs Turkey to play a certain role, and so I can imagine Obama calling him up, buttering him up, being baby-faced as possible. "[About the 1st of November,] it was revealed that U.S. President Obama held a phone call with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The topic of the conversation was the Operation to liberate Mosul and a role that Turkey wants to play." Yep, the Americans need Turkey to save ISIS in Mosul even while the Americans pretend to be opposed to ISIS. Why else would Obama want Turkey involved? If the Americans say that they don't want Turkey involved, that's how I know they do. The Americans are no longer able to halt Iraq's advance against Mosul, and that means some mechanisms are needed to thwart the attack. Obama is running out of time and fighters for his battle against Assad. Obama doesn't want to leave office having been defeated. It looks hopeless for his cause.
ERBIL, Iraq — A dispute between Iraq and Turkey has emerged as a dramatic geopolitical sideshow to the complicated military campaign to retake Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, from the Islamic State.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey has insisted on a role in the battle for Mosul, trying to ramp up an involvement in Iraq that has already alarmed the Iraqi government.
...In response, the normally mild-mannered Iraqi prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, warned last week of a military confrontation between Turkey and Iraq. If Turkish forces intervene in Mosul, he said, they will not “be in a picnic”[Oct 23].
I get the distinct impression that Obama is urging Turkey to advance itself as a stench so that Iraq's forces go deal with Turkey rather than Mosul. "Zalmay Khalilzad, a former American ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, warned in a recent article in The National Interest that Turkey and Iraq may be heading for war. He wrote that there was a “danger of a war within a war that could damage the prospects for retaking and stabilizing Mosul.”" Turkey has, for months, refused to leave its military base in northern Iraq, at the demands of the Iraqi nation. This is bold-faced violation. The O-mericans have been reported to ask the Turks to leave, but by now I know enough to ignore what the Americans say publicly. For every scheme that the O-mericans have, it probably comes with a public announcement to act as cover for the scheme. When the Americans asked Turkey to leave, it was on behalf of their partnership with Iraq, and of course it behooves the United States to appear concerned for Iraqi sovereignty.
At the start of November, Turkey used the Iranian card to justify forced involvement in the Mosul operation: "[Turk] Army sends hardware to Silopi, on border with Iraq, after Turkish government warns against Iraqi Shia militias entering IS-held Mosul." This is Turkey actually threatening to cross with tanks into Iraq, as far as Mosul, to keep the Iranians out of the fight for Mosul. It's no small-potatoes threat. But it's so strange and unexpected that I can see the CIA all over it. I have read Western writers on this topic, who say that Turkey's involvement will take place without question. How do they know this? The Turks are even demanding that Kurds not be a part of the operation, thus reducing the number of invaders even further.
In the article below, where the ISIS leader is apparently sending out a message, he not only asks his fighters to attack Turkey, but Saudi Arabia. This is clearly a trick to make the world believe that neither Turkey nor Arabia are funding ISIS. "Baghdadi told his followers to launch “attack after attack” in Saudi Arabia, targeting security forces, government officials, members of the ruling Al Saud family and media outlets, for “siding with the infidel nations in the war on Islam and the Sunna (Sunni Muslims) in Iraq and Syria.”"
I've been claiming that the Americans have been slowing (postponing) all Iraqi invasions against ISIS, with one excuse or another, and here is a statement out this week suggesting the same tactic in Syria's most-important battle: "Meanwhile another Russian expert, Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, the President of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies and former head of the main department of international military cooperation of the Russian Defense Ministry (1996-2001) said that the Syrian city has not been liberated because of the interference of US Secretary of State John Kerry...''When the plan of the multidimensional operation was laid out, [Kerry] called with a request to postpone it,' he further explained."
The same article has another Russian analyst claiming that Russia will postpone its offensive in Aleppo until Trump's term begins in January, but this seems to me to be illogical. The answer to the riddle seems to be in the article below that accuses John Kerry of making an "unbelievable" number of sudden calls to Russia in an effort to form another ceasefire in Syria for fear of what Trump may do to change American policy in Syria:
The Sputnik article above says further: "However the expert said that the Russian military should operate in Syria in accordance with 'Russia's policy and not get distracted by any humanitarian pauses.'" This is how the West postpones the battle, by calling time-out for humanitarian assistance everytime the Syrian side makes large strides in its favor. In the meantime, the West slimes the Syrian side with false reports of evil that are very hard to believe. It would be a foolish thing for Assad to bomb hospitals, for example, but this is the Western claim.
A new direction: "Commenting on Iran's announcement that it could allow Russia to use the Hamadan air base in western Iran for Moscow's aerial operation against terrorists in Syria, Russian political and military analyst Alexander Perendzhiev said that Tehran might even change its legislation to give Russia a more permanent presence at the base." This opens the door for Russian intrusions into the Mosul theater in case ISIS is not routed from it. I think the Russians are looking to "help" Trump defeat Mosul. The article may have come out because the move is already a done deal, whereas the deal was not looking solid for a few months previous. Why would Russia want an Iranian base to the side of Iraq if the purpose is to attack rebels in Syria? This issue arose just as the Mosul operation was swinging into action.
A united Russia-Iran interference in Mosul is the greatest reason I can think of for Turkey's "justification" to trespass Iraq to Mosul. It becomes a Shi'ite-versus-Sunni conflict, with the Russia-Iran side predicted to take the Iraqi Kurds closer to their side, if possible, and, yes, it is very possible because the United States has a dilemma on its hands. The Kurds want Mosul control badly, but the Americans are hard-pressed to show favoritism between them and the Sunni. If Russian has no marked loyalties to the Sunni at this time, it can go for all-out support of Kurdistan, threatening Western oil interests there. It may be coming to this, now. Russia has the opportunity to infiltrate Mosul, if Iraq permits, or, perhaps, even if Iraq does not permit. I think the situation would need to be very dire before Iraq tolerates it. And dire it is expected to be if the Kurds fight tooth-and-nail for Mosul control while Turkey rolls in illegally. Russia may pretend to cool Kurd fever to fool Iraq, and the U.S. is expected to pretend to cool Turk fever to fool Iraq and the Kurds. If the U.S. takes the position of bringing the Turks to stage, it will need to throw its lot in with the Sunni side, as far as Turkey is concerned.
Postponing for as long as possible, but not forever: "A local source in Nineveh told Alsumaria News that ISIS have also begun to impose tight measures as for the passing of militant between the eastern and western shores of the Tigris River. The source explained that the measures came after US-led coalition air forces recently destroyed the last of five bridges crossing over the river, which deeply confused the group as it meant a great threat to the sustainability of supplies passing to the combat front in the east." If it meant so much to ISIS to cross over the river (from Mosul to Nineveh), why did it take so long to make the bridges unusable? The following paragraph, as well as the phrase above, "the combat front in the east," suggests that ISIS is mainly holed up on the eastern side, that being Nineveh:
“ISIS have begun to adopt a paper stamped with its red seal as a safeguard for members passing from the eastern to the western shore through boats made to offset the destruction of bridges,” said the source, who explained that the red seal gives exceptions for certain members as the group fears collective escapes by militants to the western side.
Nahum 1:11 says that an evil one, who plots against the Lord, will arise in Nineveh. Nahum appears to be an end-time prophecy, and no source I know of tells the fulfillment of the prophecy at any earlier time. One can even wonder whether this red seal will evolve into a "mark of the beast" on the hand. Hopefully, the mark of the beast will never arrive to the West. Possibly, the inability to know whether the mark is global versus local to the Middle East is a method used by God to spring the last few years on humanity as a total surprise.
Out this week: "Army says 50% of Nineveh liberated". However, one needs to distinguish between Nineveh province and the city by the same name that is eastern Mosul. I don't think that 50 percent of the city has been taken already. It appears that the Kurds, who are very dominant in Nineveh's population, have every opportunity to be a decisive part of the operation. If the Americans or the Iraqi's limit the Kurdistan role, the Russians can step in to befriend them. As it doesn't seem that ISIS has any power to resist the invasion, it seems that victory is only a matter of time.
Recently, Iraq voted to give full military rights to an army, Hashd al-Shaabi, and it has been given the task of taking Tal Afar, about 40 miles west of Mosul, from ISIS. Here is the response from the Americans: "US missile strikes Iraqi forces' command tent in Tal Afar: Hashd al-Shaabi". Incredible nerve, Obama, way to go. The buck stops with you. Thank you for telling the world that you are supporting ISIS:
The Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), also known as Hashd al-Shaabi forces, in Iraq say the US-led coalition fired a missile at their command tent at the recently liberated Tal Afar Airport after Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi met with commanders there.
In a statement released on Friday, the PMU said that the attack took place on Thursday and left several people injured.
An investigative committee has been set up to probe the incident, with its examination of the missile wreckage showing that the laser-guided rocket had not been fired by the Takfiri Daesh terrorist group, the statement read.
It also added that the missile landed one meter and a half from the PMU commanders' tent while a drone belonging to the US-led coalition was up in the sky.
The PMU called on the US-led alliance to provide an explanation for the incident, noting that it will announce the findings of the probe after its conclusion.
On Saturday, the Iraqi parliament approved the merger of the PMU with the army. Chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) Ammar Hakim hailed the development as a national event.
The PMU also freed 400 Iraqi families held by Daesh as human shields in western Tal Afar. Iraqi media said the popular forces further liberated three villages in the region and killed a large number of militants.
It is easy to realize that the western road out of Mosul, which was left unblocked by Iraq, probably by a scheme of the Americans, allowed ISIS fighters in Mosul to escape to Tal Afar. Apart from this extra army that is now directly under Iraqi control, Tal Afar was supposed to be like a haven for the American-Isis enterprise. They could sit at Tal-Afar for a while, between Iraq and Syria, and conclude their next steps from there. It explains why the American military decided to kill the army's commanders. However, the article doesn't say whether there were any deaths. You can read in the article concerning ISIS' spy drones. We don't expect ISIS to have drones, unless they were supplied by the Americans. It's a no-brainer. Today, the American military would not build a drone that can be operated by the enemy, for any drone can easily be ruined remotely from a satellite impulse.
In an article earlier this month, we learn that it was the same Hashd army that blocked the road between Mosul and Tal-Afar: "Iraqi forces were about to cut off the western supply route used by Daesh out of Mosul on Thursday, with the leader of the Takfiri group urging his terrorists to fight on. Hadi al-Ameri, the commander of Iraq's largest volunteer forces, said his fighters were completing the first stage of their operations...'Today, God willing, is the completion of the first stage of the Hashd operations - that is cutting the supply route of the enemy between Tal Afar and the Muhalabiya district, reaching to Mosul,' he said." We now know that the Americans are highly displeased with this move. Thank you, Russia, for revealing the true nature of Americans in Iraq. It adds: "Atheel Nujaifi, the governor of Nineveh province, of which Mosul is the capital, said that Daesh militants and their families were leaving the city in droves and heading to Syria."
A blogger: "ISIL Governor in Tal Afar Flees to Syria with Millions in Cash."
Here is Google's page for the attack by the Americans. The story is a day old as I write, but no CNNS or Fox's are reporting the story yet:
I have a hard time believing that Press TV concocted this story as a fabrication. Of course, the Americans are expected to deny the report. The truth is, the Iraqi commanders believe that the Americans shot the missile. This is a huge story as-is. Where is the Western media? Supporting the American rats in Iraq??? The fact that Western media are slow to report this suggests that the Pentagon has not yet drafted its side of the story for public dissemination. It also suggests that Western media are tools of the military, reporting what the military wants reported. There is probably a general understanding that this should be the case, meaning that Western media is no less biased than Russia-state media.
As the Hashd army is called a Shi'ite army, but my understanding is that it also has some Sunni, making it a more-appropriate tool for use between Mosul and Turkey. The latter country claims to be concerned that a Shi'ite invasion on Sunni Mosul will harm the Sunni inhabitants, but this only shows that Turkey is not very eager to see the end of ISIS. The November-4 article below tends to reveal that the Americans are standing with Turkey:
The Shiite-led Hashd al-Shaabi militia said Thursday that its forces are 15 kilometers from Tal Afar, a Turkmen town that Turkey has warned the militia to stay clear of.
...Nuri said the Iranian-backed Hashd had not received any air support from the coalition, which had from the outset opposed any role for the militia in the Mosul offensive.
There you have it, the Americans are not wanting extra fighters to handle ISIS. The Americans can give whatever excuses they want, but they haven't fooled the locals either, let alone the Iraqi government. I know the insidious rats that they are. As a Westerner, I am supposed to take their side and lie for them, like all the trusted media. I risk sounding pro-Russia by taking this position. In case you are wondering, no, I am not an Arab / Muslim.
This story from Press TV comes out after the EU voted to guard against Russian media, yet nothing in the EU has come out to act as rebuttal. It appears, so far, that the Western tack is to simply mention nothing, give the story no legs as long as the Iraqi's don't mention it. The Iraqi's are under pressure because they have American dollars rolling in continuously. The rats buy their ability to act as rats. Let's face it. If the Russians want to be held as a credible nation in Iraq, they would never put out a story saying that commanders of an Iraqi army claimed a U.S. missile strike that landed five feet from their tent, if it were untrue. If the Americans were after the Iraqi president, even if only to scare him into compliance with American wishes, the Tal-Afar operation may die out, but we may not hear about it other than from the media of America's enemies.
Press TV adds: "The association of Iraq's Sunni Muslim scholars has hailed the parliament's recent recognition of the Shia-majority Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), known as Hashd al-Sha'abi, as a subdivision of the country's armed forces." This recognition came on the same day as the alleged missile to the commanders' tent. For the rats, this development is as badly an upset as Clinton losing to Trump. The Shi'ite commanders of this extra army are not swayed by American money, as is the Iraqi government. It does not do the will of the rats, as does the Iraqi government to too-far a degree. But, lately, the Iraqi government has been showing a string of disobediences toward the rats, and this missile is the latter's bad headache gone hyper-migraine.
Here's Fox / AP News on November 21, six days ago as I write: "Officially, the Iraqi government and top militia leadership say that only Iraqi army units will enter Tal Afar..." That is, six days ago, Hashd was not lawfully permitted to enter Tal-Afar, but as of yesterday, pow, smack, a surprise right jolt to America's face, a new law making Hashd part of the Iraq army. Take that, you dirty rat, and get out of Iraq's way. The Fox article looks like propaganda for the U.S. military. Far be it from me to support my own kind when they are acting the rat.
After the article portrays the Hashd army as an arm of Iran, it speaks to what looks like inevitable war with Turkey. "Outside Tal Afar, the commander who led the operation to retake its airport last week said forces in the area would not stand for any Turkish intervention." The article then wants to make a distinction between the Iraqi government and the commanders for the Tal-Afar offensive, as though Baghdad is not as eager for the invasion, or incapable of ruling the city once its taken. The idea is to paint a bleak picture in the mind of the Westerner, as though, perhaps, it is best to leave ISIS alone rather than have Iran rule the city. I can see right through this propaganda. Clearing ISIS from the city is far-more important than whether or not Shi'ites will have majority control over the aftermath. That issue can be hashed out later. Reuters is adding to the propaganda on November 27, but Reuters mentions none of the US-missile attack, not even to dispel the charge. Turkish diplomats visited Iran on the same day.
Also on November 27, we read that Iraq will receive a four-billion-dinar loan from the World Bank on the first of December, smack-right-away. That should keep Iraq's mouth quiet about the missile strike, and moreover it should make Iraq tell the commanders to stay quiet about it too. But it doesn't change the fact that Iraq knows about it. It's pathetic how the West throws your money away for its rat campaigns, making war in the first place only to waste money on top of the bloodshed and horror, the agony and the pain. Tell me that Hell isn't justified.
There is a question as to what ISIS will do in Syria once removed from northern Syria. Southern Syria shares a small border with Israel, and, out on November 28, we find what could be a re-occurring theme: "The Israeli military says it has carried out an air strike in Syria on a building used by Islamic State militants to attack Israeli forces" (Fox News). The Russian RT media claims that the ISIS fighters crossed the Israeli border: "On Sunday, an IDF patrol came under small arms and mortar fire from across the border on Israeli part of the Golan Heights at around 8:30am local time, according to the Jerusalem Post. The gunmen were said to be from the IS-affiliated grouping called ‘Shuhada al-Yarmouk’." Someone in the upper levels of ISIS may have ordered this thing for to start a trend and get fighters down toward Israel. I can imagine Assad supporting ISIS against Israel with money.
Also on November 28: "Nineveh (IraqiNews.com) US forces have now joined Iraqi troops and voluntary militias in eastern Mosul in their offensives to retake the city from Islamic State militants, a military source has said...'US troops are now fighting side by side with al-Hashd al-Shaabi at the eastern districts of Mosul. Seven hundred elements from al-Hashd had been prepared to flow on the city before the US troops in a bid for incursion inside new districts. However, those attempts failed due to resistance from ISIS,' said the officer." This could indicate that, as part of the deal to keep quiet on the missile strike, the Americans must become more engaged in the effort against ISIS, and moreover must allow Hashd to enter Mosul, which was not permitted earlier. The article adds what looks like an American attempt to thwart Iraqi propaganda: "American commanders have warned their Iraqi counterparts that exaggeration in reporting battlefield victories could be 'counter-productive', according to the source." I imagine that the Americans are out-right creating news of killing ISIS militants when they killed none at all. The article also has the Americans warning of a "scorched-earth policy" to be put into use in Mosul, an ideal excuse for killing the soldiers on the Iraqi side "by accident."
Also, if it was the choice of the Americans to join the fight in eastern Mosul, it could mean that they hold ISIS in western Mosul in higher value, probably because it stands the best chance of escaping into Syria. Keep your eyes out for an ISIS retreat into southern Syria, in case this is the start of the crusade against Israel.
Another headline on November 28: " UK commander in Iraq calls for patience over retaking Mosul from Isis". That is, do it SLOWLY, because the West is losing control of the operation.
Hillary jumped up from the empty Kleenex boxes that surround her, and rushed out the door to partake in a voter re-count to make her the president. She likes torment, doesn't she? Someone had best order a truckload of new tissues.
Perhaps at the top of the next update, I'll be revisiting Dave Williams at NASA for a short message.
Table of Contents