Previous Update

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)
January 15 - 21, 2019

The Sign on Ruth Ginsburg?
Obama's Merrick Garland and the Murder of Judge Scalia
The Amazing Wings of 9-11
Bigfoot Hoax

Last week we caught wind in the news that the CIA was re-creating an ISIS monster in striking back against Trump's decision to pull out of Syria, and this week: "A suicide bombing claimed by Islamic State militants killed at least 16 people, including two U.S. service members and two American civilians, in northern Syria on Wednesday, just a month after President Donald Trump declared that IS had been defeated and he was pulling out U.S. forces." Unless Trump is wise enough to see the CIA behind these killings, he's going to cave on his Syria decision. Unless he uproots the rats at the CIA, he'll be controlled by them. Poor, stupid president, who didn't call 9-11 for what it was, who didn't ask Pompeo to uproot the rats at the CIA. By his own going half-way with the deep state, he's entrapped by it, and therefore becomes one of its assistants.

On the 21st: "Another bomb attack targets U.S. troops in Syria". That's two in roughly a week, yet we didn't hear of such things before Trump unveiled the pull-out. You see, the CIA / military is ready to kill its own troops to fight Trump's decision. What should Trump do about this?

Is the following the start of an assassination attempt for to blame it on ISIS: "Federal authorities on Wednesday arrested a metro Atlanta man they said was plotting to attack the White House but instead got entangled with the FBI." This is the same CIA that opposed Trump while Pompeo, his good buddy today, was leading the CIA. So, there is nothing to do but to depend on Jesus to expose the rats, and I think He wants to assure that Trump can't take the credit for it, because he will try to.

Comment from a youtube video of January 13: "Did you see Judge Jeanine interview with POTUS? He hinted at some big revelations soon and justice." That was when Trump got wind of his poll numbers going down. He thinks he can get the base excited again with talk like that. The base will become even more disillusioned by both Trump and his never-complaining die-hards as he continues to do the talk but not the walk. Pray that his numbers go so low that he'll need to do what he was required to do two years ago. As 2020 approaches, he'll remember that his traveling about and charm was insufficient to re-win the House. He might do it differently, this time, in other words, such as doing what he should have done against the deep state two years ago.

But if he starts way too late in 2020, that's not going to deceive many. As you may have witnessed, Trump was fuming at the deep state as the 2018 elections approached, hoping all would fall more for him, but, to his dismay, the Rosenstein scandal broke out at just the wrong time (for him), for it forced him to expose that he was all mouth, no action. I don't think he's going to repeat that insincere approach for 2020. What canon will he use to take the House back? Ahh, there is but one canon alone: to expose the deep state. All other issues are pea-shooters.

It is well known now that Mr. Huber of Utah, whom Sessions appointed to look into corruption under Obama, is not doing his job. Yet Trump has not demanded anything to be done. How can this be? How can Trump speak as though he cares about snipping Obama-circle corruption, but then say nothing to Rosenstein about Huber's pitiful "investigations"?

If Bill Barr becomes the new attorney general, that's yet another Catholic chosen by Trump. It starts to appear that Trump is serving the Vatican. I've heard from DiGenova that Barr is/was involved with the Knights of Columbus. Read a few posts from this page first concerning their secret rituals:

As you can see, an advocate for the Knights says that there is absolutely nothing for a woman to be bothered sick about the fact that the initiate cannot inform his own wife on the nature of his very first ceremony. Now read from another page:

My father, who passed away a few years ago, was a member of the Knights of Columbus when he was younger. He had the sword and all those other gimmicks that are associated with membership. Anyhow... he always told me how the initiation ceremony was one of the scariest things he's ever witnessed or taken part in. He said he was sworn to secrecy and he would never elaborate or give a single detail of anything he saw. My question is to those who have witnessed this ceremony or who know about it... What exactly takes place? What is so scary or creepy about it?

I'm sure there are members or former members who read this board. Hopefully someone is willing to fess up! Thanks.

There are others saying that there's nothing to it, but maybe they are in the club and lying about it. Someone on the page has taken a Knight of Columbus to task with the question on why the Order uses a dove as symbol. The Knight can talk till blue in the face that the dove represents the Holy Spirit, but, clearly, it should be obvious to all that the dove is used because "columbia" means "dove." The Catholics who created the Knights of Columbus may have used Christopher Columbus as a secondary symbol, for outsiders, when in truth the Order may have been in honor of a pagan-dove entity.

Why did God chose the dove to act as a symbol of the Holy Spirit? Was it because the Sadducees, who were watching the baptism of Jesus, had a dove symbol for themselves which they had attributed to God? In my heraldic work, I found evidence that the first grand master of the Templars was from "the city of doves," Cuppae by name, in Moesia. This grand master married Elizabeth Chappes, whose surname I trace to "Caiaphas." I trace Joseph Caiaphas of ancient Israel to the Joseph surnames, one of which shares the footless martlet (same colors) with English Colons/Collins. I'm pointing this surname out because the blog above says that Christopher Columbus' official surname was, Colon. Spanish Colons use the same, down-pointing dove as Italian Paloma's, only with a different background. In the blog, the anti-Catholic claims that the down-pointing dove is a destruction symbol, or satanic, that is.

God showed me that Paloma's share the pale bar of Pero's and therefore trace to Pierro's/Pero's, the latter first found in Pavia, which was founded by Laevi Gauls whom I trace to the "Levites" amongst the Sadducees in the days of Joseph Caiaphas. He became the high priest after marriage to a daughter of the high priest, ANANus/Annas, and it just so happens that Annans/Annandale's (use link above to load this surname too) share the upright and gold griffin in Crest with Colons/Collins. I now think I have reason to identify the Knights of Columbus with the Catholicized, PIERleoni Jews of Rome.

I have heraldic evidence to trace the Caiaphas-suspect Cabots (whom I see in the Geddes motto) to the Geds on the Nith river in about 400 AD. The mouth of the Nith is near Annandale. Here's from page 3 of the blog: "But things get really interesting when you realize that it was the same people who organized 'John' Cabot's voyage to the new world, who sent Columbus. And Cabotto got maps from a Welsh man, of the Ap Meryk family (the p is effectively silent), who had been in charge of Fishing Licenses." Meric / Merick is a surname that likely named, America. Cabots share fish with Geds and Geddes'. The Meric(k)s are suspect from Maurice Drummond, ship pilot. Merics are in Drummond colors, and Damorys / Amore's, first found in Oxfordshire with Peare's, look to be sharing the wavy fesses of Drummonds.

Maurice Drummond, the first Drummond, piloted the ship that brought Margaret to Scotland, where she married king Malcolm III. The Malcolm surname is listed with Colon-like Columns and Callams, and even comes up as "Calone." This surname shares the same stars as Welsh Mericks, and the latter's wavy fesse is probably a gold version of the wavy Dol fesse, for Alans of Dol lived in Shropshire, where Colons/Collins were first found. French Alans share the Merick / Malcolm/Colone stars.

There was good evidence to trace their Calome variation of "Salome" BOEThus, of the Sadducees and Herods. The first Herod, whose father traces to Kilpatricks upon the Nith river, had the Edomite mother, Cypros, suspect with Coopers/Coppers who share the blue saltire with Malcolms/Calome's. Geddes, Geds and Cabots share the fish with BOETs, and the latter's Coat looks like a version of the Pierro/Pero Coat; the shared roses of which are likely code for the Rose clan, itself highly suspect with the Rus ancestry of Drummonds, and first found in Nairnshire with Geddes'. Maurice Drummond was the grandson of king Andrew I of Hungary and a Varangian-Rus mother. The Ross clan, which named Ross-shire smack beside the Rose's and Geddes', had one Andrew as their patriarch.

Why does the Leve/Leaves/Leaf Crest show a dove? Why do English Page's, a branch of Pagans/Payens, share the dove in Paloma-dove colors? French Page's, first found in Dauphine with Pagans/Payens, were, for a short time, said to have been first found in Ile-de-France with Chappes' and Levi's. French Page's have four fesses in the colors of the Merick fesse, and in the colors of the four pale bars of Dance's/Donnas', the latter first found in Piedmont with Pero's and Pierro's/Pero's (share Alan fesse). The lion of French Page's (Leo-lion colors) is suspect with that of Rita's, first found in Rome, home of the Catholicized Pierleoni Jews, who, if I recall correctly, tried to seat an anti-pope, or something to that effect. Merics share three bends (different colors) with Paganells, the latter first found in Yorkshire with Drummond-suspect Mars (earls of Mar were at KilDRUMMy). Pierleoni were named after a pope Leo, and Leo's share the fesse of French Paine's while English Paine's share the lions of Mars (probably the Ross lion). German Leo's/PYRzewski's (Ross lion in colors reversed) were first found in Hamburg with German Drummonds (share the wavy bend of Dols). Alans of Dol were the FitzAlans of ARUNdel (named after Arun), and Jewish Aarons/Arens share the quadrants of Leo's/Pyrzewski's. German Arens (early in Hamburg) are suspect with the Petty / Fast / Arms-of-Rothschild quadrants.

The fact the Knights of Columbus pattern themselves after Masonry tells me all I need to know. It can be defined as junk Christianity, with a humanitarian facade. Some of the rituals may be satanic, but they cannot all be, or people would discover it. There needs to be plenty of innocent rituals so that those who partake can say they went through one with nothing horrid about it. Why have degrees, secret rituals, and "Knights" in the name if it's not a Knights-Templar copycat? And that's what it itself portrays itself as, without having any bones about being a Masonic ape. What's wrong with Catholics? Are they daft? Do they not understand Jesus? Posers, mere posers lead them. And soon a Catholic "knight" will head the justice department of the United States. How would it play out if the 666 came while a catholic "knight" was in charge of the jail system?

Rosenstein, it has been unleashed, was working on a plot to control journalists more than the deep state already controls them. The story is from John Solomon, and adds that Whitaker might keep Rosenstein's project in a warm place in his absence. When first becoming known, this Whitaker was celebrated by anti-deep-staters, but, look, he's starting to come off as just another rat. Rosenstein wants to punish leaking journalists, but wants to retain the right for the FBI to leak things. It's easy to do: just don't punish the "good" leakers, and punish only the leakers who complicate deep-state agendas. You see, instead of Trump sending a shock wave up Rosenstein's spine, the latter was working on a plot to secure more control than ever. This is the fruit of this worthless president Rump. The man has been a dismal failure. The FBI, it was disclosed by the inspector general, was wining and dining journalists by the scores so that it could have big choice in whom should leak their "news releases."

Trump is very happy to have the wall in the news instead of pounding on the deep state, for wall news is Trump news, and that's the way he likes it, not surprisingly. However, the news is not going well for him as his enemies give appearances that he alone is responsible for the government shut down, and he made the mistake of saying that he'll keep it shut for months or longer, if necessary. It's the way he deals, but it made him appear callous. He may soon wish that the wall is no longer in the news, and, oh no, another caravan is coming i.e. more boring, contrived news.

Here's Devin Nunes, the current leader of the Intelligence Committee, who says that he was in charge of keeping 17 Intelligence agencies in check. Nunes never did come out with his report on Hillary Clinton. I've not even heard him mention the reason, but then I've not seen all of his television appearances. Nunes was let down by Trump when Nunes needed him. Practically begging Trump to release some 20 pages of the FISA applications, Trump denied him. Just think about that for a minute. This was Trump's defining moment, the truth about him. I don't care what the reason, Trump obstructed justice at that moment along with Sessions and Wray. That is the truth, the only truth that matters about trump. He is an imposter of a grand magnitude, for the FBI was breaking laws in order to deprive both he and his voters -- half the nation -- and still he has protected the FBI leaders from criminal proceedings.

I don't care what the reason is, the president is required to punish what he knows has taken place, not so that Republicans can gloat, but in order to correct the deep-state wrongs. A father who loves his son will punish wrong-doing. A president who truly loves his nation would never allow the FBI to get away with what it has done. Trump does not love the nation at all, the people, nor care about the sad state of his justice department. Trump deserves to be jailed. He is in the position to make corrections, but refuses. His wall project is therefore not for the people, not for the safety of the nation, but for some other purpose. And I know what it is, now: for his re-election campaign. He has so let the voters down on the deep-state promise that he feels he can't afford to lose the wall promise.

Here's a video on Bill Barr, with Democrats warning that they will not vote for him if he interferes with the Mueller probe. But wait. If Barr is the attorney general, doesn't he have the responsibility to take over the probe as his own baby? Doesn't he have the responsibility to see what Mueller has done thus far, to make recommendations on his going forward, or even to order him flat-out to quit if there is cause??? Yes, he does. Barr has more than every right to release all of Mueller's work; he is responsible for releasing the key points of Mueller's work.

As you can see, Grassley has caved with Barr already, because they are promising to let the Mueller probe play out. How can any respectable man make such a promise before seeing what Mueller has done? If Barr makes such a promise, then garbage is he. There is much reason to suspect the Mueller probe as a political axing of Trump, and yet Barr promises to let this continue? What does Trump, the fink in the deep-state tunnel, have to say about this??? We shall see, but we can already say that Trump had a duty to order Sessions into his office to talk about the probe's merits. It doesn't matter that Sessions recused himself from Trump's Russia woes, he is still required to oversee what Mueller is doing. And Trump can ask Sessions (or Rosenstein) whether Mueller is staying on track with Russian collusion, and, if not, why Sessions allows him to continue the probe in other areas having nothing to do with collusion.

I am coming to the point where I see the Mueller affair as a pre-designed script, with Trump playing his part of pretending to be opposed. But why? What "good" would such a script be? There's an easy answer: the Mueller probe gives legal right for the DoJ to spy on all of Trump's people, to keep tabs on which of them is a complication for any deep-state agenda. Trump has never lamented this power of Mueller to spy on his own team, doesn't even want the idea to enter your mind. The idea that the political enemy is spying on the entire government makes the wall issue pale. Something is wrong. There is a deceptive scheme being played out with actors merely acting like friends to Republican voters.

Why can Democrats demand of Barr certain things as conditions to his confirmation while Democrats don't give and Republican president the same freedom? If Trump does it, they call it "interference." Yet when they interfere, it's fair ball? Barr has promised to allow Mueller's program to finish out (didn't even give a time limit) even though he doesn't know the stuff of that program. What kind of a man is this? It looks like a script. Others decided for him to take this position, to allow the criminal, Mueller, to continue with the wink of the entire justice department. These are rats working in concert, and my job is to expose them. Barr is nothing but a tool, and if they need to twist him all up to get him to fit into their machine, that's what they will do. It starts to appear immediately that Trump has once again failed the people with his AG pick.

Barr is expectedly required to tell his Democrat foes that the Mueller probe will be permitted to continue as long as it's not found to be a political witch hunt. Everyone understands the grounds for such a statement, and his fellow Republicans should support him in such a stance. It has backbone, integrity, honor, logic, fair play, justice. Yet, for the sole purpose of becoming confirmed, he's shown himself to be a dog, ignoring justice itself. The one who wants to be the chief justice man is ignoring justice merely to become confirmed. Why bother confirming such a stupid tool? What good could a soft and stupid tool be? Or, if he's pretending to be what he's not, can he be trusted to do the right things? If politicians bow to political expedience instead of being examples of strength, how does this make America great?

Doing the right thing starts off with saying the right thing: "Mr. Democrat Foe, if you're asking me to tell you beforehand how I will treat the Mueller probe, without first looking at it, then you're asking me to be your stupid tool. If you want a dog to roll over for you, you need to be at a pet store today." That's what Barr should tell the senators who threaten him. Instead, Barr is showing the world that he's a stupid tool.

Later in the week, when questioned by Diane Feinstein, Barr said that a president is in a breach (a no-no, can't do)) if he requests help from the attorney general on any matter involving his own legal woes or that of a family member. I told you that Barr is garbage. He can't even look Feinstein in the face and say that it's perfectly acceptable for the president to make a request to the attorney general to thwart someone, like Mueller, who is abusing him with illegalities. Pardon me, but if anyone should deserve the protection of the attorney general, it's the president. Is Barr too stupid to understand this? No. He himself said earlier that Mueller's case against Trump is on legal thin ice, yet this week, he's lying down for Feinstein, rolling over and playing dead, telling her a false thing that she wishes to hear. See 7th minute:

In the 11th minute, Feinstein asks him whether Trump is permitted to tell Mueller to pack it up. Barr says that Trump is not permitted to do so. But that depends on what Mueller's doing, stupid. Why didn't Barr enter that possibility? If Mueller is abusing Trump, doesn't there come a point where the one being abused can exert his powers for various good reasons? Yes, absolutely. Why can't the president have an independent player in the investigation to assure that Mueller isn't being abusive, vengeful, self-protecting or political? Why can't that independent person be Barr himself? Yet Barr has already committed to not allowing Trump to request an investigation on Mueller's motives and direction. Barr is pretending before Feinstein to be oblivious to Mueller's disgusting motives. Someone said that the two had worked together in the past. Details please.

By Wednesday, Feinstein said with a smile that the Barr confirmation looks assured. What message does this send Trump's base? There is the possibility that Democrats are not fighting hard against Barr because they are scared stiff to do to him as they did to Kavanaugh. My theory is that they don't want to anger the next attorney general, for that will bring him down on the Democrat crime ring a lot harder than if they play respectfully with him at this time. But this may be more my dream than a possibility.

Also this week, Schumer asked Barr to reveal now that he will in no way interfere with the Mueller probe. Schumer (a model hypocrite) lamented that Barr would not give him those assurances. Does this mean that there's hope on our side? Not necessarily, for Barr saw that Schumer was trying to dictate his job methods. Barr may have refused to answer Schumer based merely on his poor approach (attitude).

Barr has used "rule of law" to make himself appear worthy, but George Bush Jr. used that phrase too even while being lawless in the White House. Barr has essentially confirmed that Trump asked him nothing as to what he may or may not do, which tends to tell me that someone other than Trump chose Barr. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a president asking a potential candidate something like, "If I nominate you as the AG, will you tend to prosecute Hillary Clinton? Will you investigate Obama's role with FISA?" These are perfectly fine questions to ask, and Barr could have answered anyway he wished at that time. The president has the right to know the positions of his AG pick, before he's nominated, does he not? How can it be acceptable for a president to choose an AG like a button out of a hat? How can it be acceptable for a president to choose an AG not knowing his positions on the important matters of the day? "Rule of law" to a Democrat and a demon means something wholly different than to a good man. Did trump allow someone else to pick Barr???

In the 10th minute, the speaker in the video below stumbles upon a potential friendship between Barr and Rosenstein, which can explain why senate Democrats seem to be warm toward Barr this week. It can also suggest that Trump is involved in a trick by nominating Barr, a trick to fool his voters when, in the end, the Rosenstein deep state gets their man on the top:

After the 10th minute, the speaker reveals that Barr is the one man ultimately responsible for Sonia Sotomayer's elevation to the Supreme Court. Jews and Catholics on the top court, but they don't want Protestants, even though the latter outnumber Catholics two to one, and far more the Jews. The deep state doesn't want Bible-minded Christians to rule.

Here's an article telling that Barr was called into a meeting by then-president George Bush Sr., who wanted Barr to assure him that he could invade Iraq without congress' approval. Barr was allowing a president to ask him whether the attorney general would prosecute him for invading Saddam unilaterally. Bush was asking for a wink, and Barr gave it to him on behalf of the attorney general. I would therefore guess that Barr was in cahoots with Bush Jr. on the 9-11 scam, to cover that crime along with his friend, Mueller. Trump starts to look like a repeat offender on this pick, a delinquent, for the purpose of protecting the Bush crime ring, and all the Nazified people installed into the spy systems. They have had an agenda for the country from years ago, and aim to carry it out. The agenda is to seize the wealth using political, judicial, and legislative powers.

What happens when Trump wants to unilaterally use the military, with Barr as the attorney general? Barr thinks it's legal. Where is this headed?

I'm now watching to see whether Trump has made a deal with the Vatican. If he has, can it have prophetic value? There is talk now that Trump is desirous of putting another Catholic on the supreme court to replace Ginsburg. This other Catholic is Amy CONEY Barrett, who was once a clerk for judge Scalia. If she gets confirmed, I might have, by then, some interesting things to say concerning my white-rabbit event, which had to do with CONEY rabbits and a Barret-like Bra location in Cuneo. Was God pointing to her with my white-rabbit event? If she gets confirmed, it could appear that Trump is placing the United States into the lap of the Vatican. Mrs. Barrett was born in New Orleans.

In more than one December update, I related my dream having a bucket in a Volkswagen Beetle, afterwhich I went to the bathroom, and this pointed very hard to the Bath surname. However, I didn't know until now that the Ginsburg surnames (one Jewish) show what look like buckets. The Bath surname was first found in Somerset with Badens, and it just so happens that the supreme court judge about to retire is Ruth BADER Ginsburg. Big hmmmm. The Ruth/Rother surname (Bader/BADENius/Baade colors) happens to be listed with Randolphs of Moray while the other Randolphs of Moray share the cross of Baths and even show a bat as code for Baths. The Bucket surname is very linkable to the heraldic water bouget, which is shared by the bat-using Bugs/Buggys and Rothschild-beloved Rose's (beside Moray). The Jewish Rothchilds (no 's') use roses, and share the Rodham/Rodden bend, which is also the Bader/Badenius bend. My problem is, I don't know whether Ginsburgs use buckets. Check out this video's claim (3rd minute) on Ginsburg:

One of the comments at the video above: "Wait what...I thought Dorothy threw a BUCKET [caps mine] of WATER and melted this witch" (posted by Stallowned Stallion 10 months ago). A water bouget is a water container and therefore play on "water bucket"!! Wow. Did God set this up? Was he pointing to her replacement, and/or her agenda, with the Volkswagen dream?

MORE AMAZING. The video above was put out on February 13, 2018, and Scalia was murdered on February 13, 2016! Zikers. My white-rabbit event seemed part-and-parcel concerning Scalia's murder! I don't know what all to make of this, yet. The reason that this video was found just now is that I checked my files for "Ginsburg." Only one file came up, the 3rd update of February, 2018 (dated 13-19th), where I had shared this video. Just look at that, for the video was only a few days old when I shared it then. In fact, I shared the video near the top of the update, suggesting that it may have been on the 13th itself. Luck? Or was God in this? Did He cause me to share it for today's update?

Did Ginsburg call for Scalia's murder? Why would God point to her concerning Scalia? If Amy Coney Barret replaces her, it's better evidence yet that God has been pointing to Ginsburg as per Scalia's murder.

There had been a sleeping-bag dream that pointed to Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie, and to John B. Poindexter's Saint-Hubertus Order (Catholic). Scalia was killed at Poindexter's ranch. For what it could be worth, PoinDEXTERs share the blue star with Baders/Badenius', and Dexters share the double fesses of Bucket-like Baggets (and Braswells).

In the dream, a man rode his motor bike off of a ROAD as code for Rodham liners out of Moray's Rothes castle, then riding down a hill that can be partly pointed to "Hillary," where he circled a sleeping bag. He then rode up the hill toward me as I was walking across the road into a parking lot as code for Parkings/Perkins. Later, and after the dream with the bucket, I learned that Bags use cinquefoils in colors reversed from those of French Buckets. In this picture, it might even be faggot-important that GAYwoods (Norfolk, same as Bags) likewise use the Bag cinquefoils in colors reversed while Bags were at Gaywood.

In both dreams there was a mall, and the sleeping-bag dream confirmed that Mauls/Morleys were to be included. After I placed the bucket into the back seat of the Volkswagen, while it was parked in a mall parking lot, I had to go to the BATHroom, and entered the mall to do so. I am now supposing that this latter scene was part-code for Bader Ginsburg, especially if Ginsburgs use buckets, or whatever else the item in the back seat could be taken for. To me, it was just an ordinary pail or bucket.

Recall the doves earlier in this update, for Pansys/PANESys use doves and are expected in the pansy held by the CONEY rabbit in the Coney Crest. There is another white rabbit in the Esquer Coat while there's "An ESQUIRE's helmet proper" in the Poindexter Crest which can apply to Esquers. Panseys may have been a branch of the Panes surname listed with Paine's, who happen to have a "MALo MORi" motto phrase while the rider on the motor bike was Mr. Morley.

POINdexters, who come up with a Podesta-like Puddester variation, can be a branch of the Paion variation of Payens/Pagans. Obama's mother was a Paine liner, either from a parent or wife of her father, if I recall correctly. The father was Stanley ARMOUR Dunham, and here it gets important where English Randolphs share the Coat of Dunhams. There are Randolphs in Obama's family tree not far back from her father. We can now ask whether God arranged the heraldry and my dreams to point also to Obama as a guilty party. The Armours happen to use a "SQUIRE's" helmet, virtually the esquire's of Poindexters, and then I wrote about a twitch at my upper ARM as God's pointer to Obama's father-in-law, for Twitch's/Twiggs use "An esquire's helmet". The Armours share the armored arm with DUSTERs, making the latter an obvious branch of PoinDESTERs/Poindexters and Dexters, for the latter use two of the Armour chevrons.

Having said that, one can then add that the Poindexter/Puddister star is in Bag-cinquefoil colors while Bags were first found in Norfolk with Dunhams. The GayWOOD location of Bags can then jibe with the BagWOOD location of Bags, and to this let's repeat that I picked up the sleeping bag on a hill in the woods, and that Woods, suspect with the tree of Pane's/PANETTA's/Panico's, were first found in Leicestershire with Dexters. The Dunham dancette border reveals that Dunhams were from Dance's/Donnas'. There is a dancette in the Twitch/Twigg Chief, and the triple bends of Twitch's/Twiggs are colors reversed from those of PINGs/Pongs/PAGANells, the latter sharing the so-called label in Chief with Pane's/Panetta's/PANICo's.

There is a question here as to whether God arranged this picture to point to Comet Ping-Pong of pizzagate infamy. English Paganells look to be using a dagger as code for the Dexaroi-liner Dexters (Decks/Daggers share the red squirrel with Squire's), but then there is a known dagger in the Crest of Comine's/Comyns, the latter in Comet and Paganell colors and format.

A good way to link Poindexters to Paine's/Panes' and Pansys is where the Lacys/Laces' appear to be in the "lacessit" motto term of Poindexters. Lacys/Laces' use black roundels, and the Coney pansy is formed with three black roundels. I get it. The Coneys were Lacy kin, at least round-about.

It appears that God is wanting to point to more than one affair as concerns the same crime ring of a multi-character crew. The Come variation of Comets looks like a pointer to James Comey. In order to accomplish this, God could have chosen a Comey surname to lead the FBI under Obama, or He could have caused the owner of Comet Ping Pong pizza to choose that name. But why? None of this "evidence" presented here can be used in a court of law. The most it can do is to convince a reader that God is pointing to certain guilty parties as concerns the murder of a supreme-court judge and the dossier scandal that started around the same time. Having done that, it can also show a reader where to look for the guilty ones. Who would have thought to check the correspondence of Ginsburg for evidence of the guilty parties?

The dream's hill has been verified as God's pointer to the Hill surname in multiple ways. The Hills share the Plunkett and the Claver tower. This is important where Clavers are from "Glaphyra" Archelaus (married two Herods), the ancestor of Plunkett-liner Plancia Magna (of Perkin-line Perga), the latter being the one to which I trace Parkings/Perkins. Moreover, the Claver Coat is a version of the Coney Coat, thus linking the sleeping-bag dream to my white-rabbit event that was a pointer to Scalia's murder. Plancia Magna's grandmother was OPgalli, which is why HOPpers share the Hill / Claver tower. Opgalli was Glaphyra's granddaughter. Hobsons/HOPsons nearly have a colors-reversed version of the English Hope Coat.

I don't know what more to say on this at this time on the possible pointing to Ginsburg.

Obama's Merrick Garland Denied

At almost smack-dab noon Monday, January 21, at the time that this update was being uploaded to the Internet, youtube was loaded in case there was any news to add to this update quickly, and there, on the very first youtube load, was a video in my face, "Scalia, Garland, Brazile, and Pence," dated on January 21. I couldn't resist loading this video, for obvious reason, at which time I learned that Obama had considered using Merrick GARLAND as his supreme-court pick to replace Scalia. It reminded me that, a few updates ago, I had emphasized the Crest of the Hill surname, which is said to be "GARLAND of laurel". Wow, for in that update (4th of December), I was re-telling readers of the sleeping bag found on a hill as part-code for the Hill surname, and the sleeping bag had to do with Scalia's murder. Here's what I was writing in that December update:

For years I told readers that the Hill Crest is a crescent, but lookie, just look at this, behold, what I wrote in the 2nd update of last June: "Excuse me, I goofed. I've been saying that the Hill Crest has a crescent. It's a "garland of laurel." I learned this just now when the ArcHILL Crest looked like it had the Hill "crescent, and, checking, the Archills use a "garland of laurel" too [the descriptions website was still active then]. The Archills were loaded as per the Archill character (Saxon) to which some Simsons trace themselves. The same write-up has Symon, son of Mr. Clynt, as a Simson ancestor, and the Clent hills are near the first-known Hills." Is this not the wildest thing? God seems to care about this, no surprise.

The Clints/Clents even use the garb of Blythe's. Bill Clinton's biological father was Mr. Blythe. Who arranged for Clents/Clints to use the Blythe symbol? The Jacks, not far from where Blythe's were first found, use a similar Coat, and then the other Jacks use holly while Hollys [share the Hill tower] use a Coat like that of Plunketts / Killins. The Clent Hills are in Worcestershire with the first-known Hills and Kellings...

If you didn't read that part of the December update (last update in December), you might want to now. Let's now turn to this video found about a half-hour ago as I write here. I'm happy that it didn't come out until today. I did not know that Obama liked Merrick Garland, nor am I familiar with him, or I would have mentioned him in the December update when mentioning the garland of laurel. The video shows that Merrick Garland and roughly a dozen people visited the White House on the day of Scalia's murder. He was killed either late on February 12 or early on the 13th, 2016.

It's also interesting that while I rarely mention the Merick/Merrick surname, it was mentioned in this update along with a Columbia entity. Merrick Garland was made the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit!!! And his first day as chief was February 12, 2013, three years to the day of Scalia's murder! Zikers.

Here's the video:

Although I've stressed Scalia's murder for over a year, I simply did not know (or at least couldn't remember if I did once know it) whom Obama has appointed to replace him. All I know is that I was very happy to learn that the Republicans wouldn't confirm Garland. Here's from his Wikipedia article:

On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Garland to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia. The Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on this nomination made during the last year of Obama's presidency, with the Republican majority insisting that the next elected President should fill the vacancy.

Just imagine how this burned the killers, Hillary, Obama, and the entire bag of Democrats to the cores of their souls. It's not a wonder they tried to impeach Trump as soon as possible, and here we are on the verge of Trump nominating yet a third top judge at a most-critical point. Will Trump deliver mercilessly, or will he give the top court a friend of the Democrats? When Kavanaugh was appointed, the Republicans didn't quite have a majority vote (it was 51-49 for the Democrat side) to conform an avid pro-lifer, but since then, the Senate now has the votes. Will Trump now betray pro-lifers? We shall soon see. He has no excuse not to nominate an avid pro-lifer who will strike down Roe v Wade.

I say that someone within the 12 people visiting the White House on February 12, and probably one other at least on the 13th, were to inform Obama on the murder plot, for it was too dangerous to inform him by some electronic form. There was damage control to do starting on the morning of the 13th. New decisions had to be made by the plotters from Washington to Texas and perhaps even into Mexico.

The meeting was called on February 5, and the video shows that these people could have been judicial people, problematic for Obama. That is, why risk calling a meeting that apparently has to do with picking the next supreme-court judge, before Scalia is dead?

At the 19:14 point of the video above, an email from Todd Macklerr to Donna Brazile and John Podesta is shown, thanks to WikiLeaks. This email speaks on code work with the use of "The Dogs Are Loose, Loose dogs, guys. You know what to do from here." In his next paragraph, Macklerr mentions a musical group liked by George Soros, and says that none of that paragraph is in code, meaning that the paragraph above it is in code, which includes the line, "I'll be meeting with Soros later this week for some 'pre-programming' of machines." Hmm, loose dogs and altering machines. It sounds to me like altering voting machines, for the email ends with a "humming" of machines in "November" (election time). Why "humming"? Because, I gather, it's code for the assurance that the machines are working just right for the rigging process.

The date of the email is March 19, 2016, five weeks after Scalia's murder, and in the election year in which John Podesta lost the election for Hillary Clinton. Yup, they even rigged the election and still lost. Burn-burn-burn, burn-baby-burn. God knows how to pain these snakes even before they are tossed into Hell. Have no fear. I feel that Obama must yet be burned badly even while he skates free. The email is less than two months after Podesta's "wet works " and "bedwetters" codes in his emails with Elmendorf. Thanks again to WikiLeaks for that part.

On now to the 14th minute of the video where Donna Brazile paints herself, possibly, as privy to a murder plot on both Trump and Pence, making Pelosi the new president. However, Brazile's tweets to that effect may also be taken as the impeachment of both Trump and Pence. On the other hand, Brazile knows that an impeachment scenario looks dismal at this time, though she may be reflecting upon the story of last week in which Trump was framed as urging Cohen to lie under oath. Still, with Ginsburg about to be replaced, the possibility of a murder plot for both president and pro-life vice-president becomes as much as logical. Such a thing could easily bounce to civil war; buy extra food this month and in the next few.

Brazile's tweet ends with, "Keep Hope Alive." Is this code for Hope Hicks? Does the tweet call for keeping the Hope-Hicks plot alive which had the president's assassination at heart via Hicks' romantic offerings to Trump? Is she still sleeping with the president at times? Or, Brazile's political stomping grounds is Louisiana, where Trump was recently. Hmm. Was he contacting his spies and thus checking up on her circle of snakes in a way that didn't need electronic communications?

Just before she gives the phrase above, she says, "MLK [Martin Luther King] Weekend is underway." Might that be code for "assassination is underway?

The single-most thing to convince me that the sleeping bag on a hill (dream) was about Scalia's murders was my own sleeping bag that I was using as a comforter at the time. I have used it that way until now. But for exactly the past three nights, I have been sleeping under a new comforter, which seems like it could apply in some way. Just for the record, I slept under the new one on the first of the three nights, and then placed the sleeping bag over it for part of the second night, and all of last night, due to the cold weather. The first night with the comforter was also my first night on a new mattress. I have no idea whether this means anything as a pointer to anything, but the first night was Friday, the 18th, the date of Brazile's tweet.

Hmm, the new comforter has diamond shapes that in heraldry are lozenges. On the comforter, the "lozenges" are split horizontally in black and white, the colors of the lozengy that fills the Shield of the Scayles/Schole surname! Zikers, isn't that a Scalia branch? I will get you a photo of the comforter later today.

In the last update of last November, I related two dreams on back-to-back nights both having a Michael character to whom I speak periodically. The first dream had nothing I could recall by a drink that made me feel "orangey." Here's from the November update:

Good morning. I recalled another dream as I awoke. If I don't have them while waking, I don't remember them. This time, I was at a store where I doubted that it was a legitimate store. To test the owner or salesman, I told him I would like to order a certain product I pointed to at random on a line upon a piece of paper in my hand, which had a list of codes / numbers as the product names. "Oh, the salesman said, you want the YELLOW bed," and I then saw the word "yellow" in the midst of the numbers on that line. The man said to me that the mattress is made of a material that was not good for jumping on, and so I asked Michael beside me -- the same Michael who was in the Orangey dream -- whether his kids were able to jump on the bed, and he said "oh yeah," no problem. I then awoke with my bladder about to burst, which is why I remember the dream, and I went straight away to put this YELLOW liquid into the toilet. I was amazed, because urine is the symbol of mythical Orion, to whom Orange had been traced. Hah-hah, is that not amazing?

The first dream has verified that I was correct in suspecting Michael to be God's code for Michael Rangabe I, Byzantine emperor (this has nothing to do with Scalia). I had written: "Good morning. I was having a dream as I awoke, but can't recall anything but telling Michael, who was in the Volkswagen dream, that something I drank (could have been orange juice) made me feel energetically / pleasantly "orangey." That was the word I used. I recall that, when deciphering a sprinkler-system event with Michael, I considered him as God's pointer to Michael Rangabe, and it just so happens that RANGabee is like "ORANGe."

Eventually, in the same November update, I was introducing the Kite and Kitt surnames because they look to me to be a branch of Kids / Kidds. I was assuming that kids were jumping on the bed as God's pointer to the Kid / Kid surname. And here I can repeat this spectacular thing as concerns the Matres/Mattres surname: "I have read that Kidd-like Kitts use tulips, and so if those Matres flowers are tulips too, we have an iron-clad Matres-Kidd link. Immediately after writing that, the Tulips/Tewlops were loaded, because I remember (from a previous treatment on Kitts and Kite's) that they use tulips, and, I kid you not, their tulips are in the design of the Matres flowers!!! Astounding. This is affecting me." The white garland in the Hill Crest looks like a crescent, and the Kids happen to have a white crescent in Crest.

This now begs the question on why I first slept with my new mattress on the same night I first slept with the new comforter suspect as a pointer to judge Scalia.

The urine involved in the yellow mattress-dream is Podesta-important now because I had the sleeping-bag dream while in the midst of learning, and writing, about Podesta's "bedwetters" and "wet works" codes. This is becoming pretty, darned amazing. Orion (had a urine symbol) and/or Uranus (had a urine symbol) was likely in code when the Greek myth writers portrayed Zeus as a golden shower. This may have been a faggot code as far back as that. Zeus was partly a faggot (depending on the myth writer). His son, Ares, was a child-molestation cult.

For heraldic value, I'd like to go back to where the Pero's/Perino's use one pale bar connectable to the ladder of Scalia's that itself acts as one pale bar. The Pero's use two stars beside their pale bar, all in the colors of the Merrick fesse and double stars. As Pero's/Pierro's were first found in Pavia, which was co-founded by the Laevi and the MARICi, it suddenly unveils that the MERRICKs were a line of Marici. In turn, this means that America was named after the Marici, wherefore the Laevi are suspect with its Masons. Bad, very, very bad. Woe to Masonic Washington.

Here are the photos in case you don't trust me. First, the sleeping bag on top of the new comforter. The sleeping bag is black with a red stripe down one side, same as the robes on the members of the International Order of Saint Hubertus in the photo below. The tall man at the front row, next to the boss in the center, is John B. Poindexter, who owns the ranch where Scalia was murdered:

I found the photo above the morning of the sleeping-bag dream. I didn't think the color match with the robes was coincidental. I figured that God somehow arranged for me to buy that sleeping bag, several years ago, for that morning.

Here's the new comforter with different kinds of patterns. Here's the comforter's "lozengy" in a close-up, which has diamonds with white top halves and black bottom halves. I would have preferred black-and-white lozengy as per on the Scayles/Schole Shield, but this is the next-best thing. It seems like a cosmic coincidence if God did not arrange for me to purchase this pattern.

Finally, here's old Sealy mattress still in the living room (the place will be fully finished after I make just one more coffee table, it's been such a long haul to get this far). While the photo shows a yellow mattress, that's the underside. Both mattresses are white otherwise. The old mattress sits in my living room just outside the door that goes up the new stairs = SCALA. I kid you not, the mattress sits leaned up against a couch because, a few days ago, I was trying to get it up the stair case, but could not, alone, bend it enough to get it up. The new mattress was purchased months ago, but I didn't use it until now because I had decided to build the stairs first, so that I could get the old mattress to the upper floor easier. The stairs and the mattress go together in this picture.

My senses are that the yellow mattress in the dream was such, not to point to the underside of my old one (though "Sealy" might even be a Scayles or Scalia branch), but to point to yellow urine. The question I had was why I was feeling energetically "orangey" in the dream, and that was resolved excellently with the energy drink, TANG, for I had been tracing the TANKERville's and their TANCRed branch to Greece's "TANAGRa," home of mythical Orion and/or his father. God knew what He was doing with the back-to-back Orangey and yellow mattress dreams, but when we put all of the factors together now, it seems that God was using the urine theme to point to Elmendorf's "bedwetters," a term that I deciphered as the killers of Scalia in his bed, for Podesta's "wet works" is slang for "murder."

Podesta's statement to Elmendorf was, "Didn't think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard." In this context, it doesn't sound like it relates to Scalia, but then Podesta is introducing a new topic, lending or applying their wet works of a previous topic to something else, something to do with a social gathering for Bernie Sanders at Martha's Vineyard, for Sanders defeated Hillary on February 9, in a New-Hampshire vote, the same day as this wet-works email. Yet, by using "wet works" as he did, it seems that the phrase was used between the two men at a previous time. What was the previous instance about?

There's some Democrat writers belaboring the other meanings of "wet works" aside from assassination, but this is to be expected. To really understand what Podesta's usage was about, we should bring in Elmendorf's email to Podesta: "We won. Raising money today, talking the bedwetters off the ledge and heading to NH for a long weekend …let me know what else I can do." This was on February 2, a week before the wet-works usage.

Elmendorf's email sure sounds as though it's purely on Hillary's political campaign, yet we have that sticky "bedwetters" term that seems to bond really well with "wet works." Why did Elmendorf use that term??? What political thing could he have been referring to, and was he using a political backdrop to his statements as cover for the real intent of the email: a message to Podesta on how the Scalia-murder plot was going? "Talking the bedwetters off the ledge"??? How do Democrats explain this with their best shot? Trying to get the old people in their diapers to stand in the voting lines? Hmm, that's not a great translation. "Off the ledge"? Are the bedwetters suicidal? What ledge is he talking about? It sure looks like codework to me. Why use code if the topic is purely on Hillary's election fight?

Let's try bedwetters = Scalia's killers, where the plot was to conduct the wet works in Scalia's bed. The bedwetters thus become the killers at Poindexter's ranch. "We won. Raising money today, talking the bedwetters off the ledge and heading to NH for a long weekend..." Possible translation: "We got the murder deal. Going to pick up the extra murder payment today, trying to get the deal through with the killers, who are resisting until they get more money. I'll be in New Hampshire on the weekend of his murder as my alibi."

Wikipedia's article of Steve Elmendorf: "Elmendorf is openly gay." That is, he is a disgusting pig, and it's therefore not a wonder that he's emailing with Podesta, if indeed the latter is a pedophile. Elmendorf was not an official part of Hillary's campaign, so far as I know. His Wikipedia article says nothing between he and Hillary, but we may wonder why. He does have close ties to Hillary, and he was raising money for her campaign against Sanders. Elmendorf was/is a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.

John Durham Who?

Breitbart this week:

In sworn testimony, Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Congress last month that his company does not “manually intervene” on any particular search result. Yet an internal discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News reveals Google regularly intervenes in search results on its YouTube video platform – including a recent intervention that pushed pro-life videos out of the top ten search results for “abortion.” The term “abortion” was added to a “blacklist” file for “controversial YouTube queries,” which contains a list of search terms that the company considers sensitive. According to the leak, these include some of these search terms related to: abortion, abortions, the Irish abortion referendum, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and anti-gun activist David Hogg."

So, Google is a brainwashing doctor, deciding whose information the people should learn from. We knew it long before this week. So, if Google wants to punish any kind of Christian topic, it's as easy as what you see in that quote. Google minimizes the saints, and fronts the demons to top spots. It fronts the nuttier Christian channels / websites to give appearances that it doesn't tamper with Christians. It's to be expected. But God oversees it all, let's trust. We must be minimized while the anti-Christs must be advanced. But woe to the rebels as their world begins to cave.

So, when you search for " "boston marathon" hoax ", Google can give you more sites that speak malignantly against those who think the marathon was a hoax. Etc., etc., all the way down the line as far as Google employees have the time to manipulate searches. With time, the worse this gets. It's a foul conspiracy of its own. The world is infested with conspiracies because the days are evil. Lawlessness breeds conspiracies. Currently, Google's page for the query above doesn't have a website that thinks the marathon was a hoax until the 10th result at the bottom of the page, as though Google's computer doesn't know what you are asking to find. This is how we are being denied the information we want. The deep state is obviously behind this censorship. The deep state and the anti-Christs are currently one body, something to think about, and to prepare for.

The first video presented on that webpage mentioned above is no longer being shown by youtube. There we have Google's censorship yet again. The second offering is a video from CNN and therefore not easily disposable by Google's wishes. Here's that CNN video showing a staged bombing that looks and sounds just like false-flag operations:

The webpage gives a stunning piece of correct education as per the worst-hit "victim" at the marathon: "4. Amputee actors were used, including the well-publicized man named 'Jeff Bauman' shown being moved away in a wheelchair with both legs supposedly blown off. There is no tourniquet and no blood spurting. And this was against protocol, as a man with legs just blown off would be taken off on a stretcher, not with his heart elevated above his legs in a wheelchair. If that man had really obtained those injuries and was being wheeled off like that without a tourniquet, he would have bled out and died in seconds." Not only that, but no one even attended Bauman for something like five or even 10 minutes, and he was not even the first person to be taken to the hospital, which is simply unbelievable. That's just one way in which I know that the marathon was a military fake. Yet the government allowed the event to go out as real news, and Obama's FBI was in bed with that event. Robert Mueller was the FBI director at that time (April 14, 2013), and he has blood on his hands. American governments have been lying to the people, taking them for fools, especially since 9-11 (Mueller was the FBI director even then).

A video by Tracy Beanz notified me that John Durham "is best known for leading an inquiry into allegations that FBI agents and Boston police had ties with the mob and his appointment as special prosecutor regarding the 2005 CIA interrogation tapes destruction." It reminds of the FBI collusion with the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon. We need to be more perceptive. We need to think as a rat would to know the rat. It appears in the quote above that Mr. Durham is the good guy, but this ignores the well-known fact that the deep state employs its friends to prosecute its friends. It's exactly what we expect of rats in government. Use a fellow rat to prosecute your fellow rat, and give him no sentence, or a light sentence. While I can't say that Durham is such a fellow rat, look at the following video, where the lawyer (Jewish, what else?) won't allow an FBI rat to respond to Jim Jordan due to the rats being investigated by Mr. Durham:

Before taking the position that Durham is a good guy, my question is: is he being used by the deep state to keep James Baker (FBI lawyer) safe? I mean, they can start an investigation on their fellow rat using a fellow rat so that the first rat has a means to say nothing when speaking to a congressional oversight committee.

What good are congressional hearings if the lawyer for the rats can disallow answers on key questions? There needs to be a solution for this method of obstruction. The solution is: too bad if the rat is forced to answer a question in a way that doesn't sit well with the lawyer. Too bad if the rat needs to expose his guilt, the lawyer has no justifiable right to keep that from happening. A congressional hearing needs to have as much weight as a court of law for discovering facts. It's very convenient for the rats to set up this excuse mechanism for not answering questions that reveal guilt.

In the seventh minute of the video, we learn that Durham was chosen by Holder to investigate the CIA. In an article for this matter: "In June of last year [2011], the Attorney General announced that Mr. Durham recommended opening full criminal investigations regarding the death of two individuals while in United States custody at overseas locations, and closing the remaining matters. The Attorney General accepted that recommendation." Durham looks like a rat that did his job of doing nothing to prosecute. That's why we've never heard of Durham before, because he's done nothing, right? He looks like another Horowitz-who? Holder said that Durham looked though masses of information seeking CIA guilt, yet came up with no guilt on the CIA in any regard, whether it was part of his commission from Holder or not. That's not credible. At the time of article above, John Brennan was not quite yet the CIA director, but may have been chosen to be by that time.

Wikipedia's article on Durham relaters his legal fight against the FBI's Boston office, allegedly for framing mobsters. Durham "convinced a judge to vacate the 1968 murder convictions of Enrico Tameleo, Joseph Salvati, Peter J. Limone and Louis Greco because they had been framed by the agency." These guys probably deserved prison time for other crimes, in any case, but Durham worked on their behalf, anyway. The only good thing is that the Boston FBI was revealed as conducting crimes when framing the mobsters, which the FBI will do to you too if it doesn't like you. Can we ask whether Trump has been involved with mobsters?

"Durham also led a series of high-profile prosecutions in Connecticut against the New England Mafia and corrupt politicians, including former governor John G. Rowland." Yeah, but maybe it was on behalf of the enemy-side mobsters. One just never knows for sure by scratching merely the surface at face value.

The video then tells that Trump nominated Durham with Sessions in agreement. Sessions appointed Huber to investigate things, yet word has been that Huber has yet to even question Baker, suggesting that Huber too is a paper tiger.

The buck on failure to expose things goes to Trump. He must take the responsibility for this situation. He's now fired Sessions, and is about to install one who appears to be a Bush-and-Mueller pal, as well as one who kisses the pope. If we cannot believe that Trump is this stupid, then the only alternative is that he's wheeling and dealing with the Republican deep state, giving it protection in return for some favors to his own agenda(s). None of this can be on behalf of the people, on Trump's part.

Durham was nominated just days before Trump fired Sessions. The temptation for us good guys is to view Durham as Trump's second stab at fighting the deep state where Sessions failed miserably. The temptation is to expect a Barr-Durham partnership for pulling up the deep state's tent pegs, but I say: not so fast, don't give yourself over to a possible false hope. Look deeper. Or, when you hear of persons accepted largely by both parties, it's not likely because they are good guys, but because they are rats beneficial to both sides. This view should be our initial must-think because the leaders of both parties are now rats, and the last thing they want is authentic good guys snooping around in their garages and closets. When you hear that a person, as we heard with Mueller and Rosenstein, is respected by both sides, it's because the rats want us to unwittingly accept him/her as a good pick. Durham, we see in the video above, is liked by both parties.

James Comey, by the way, had been the deputy Attorney General for the Bush pick, Alberto Gonzales. "Gonzales was an early advocate of the controversial USA PATRIOT Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001." Wasting no time, the Act was out of the gate with 9-11. The two were intended to be together as a fraud against the American people. "During Gonzales's tenure, the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were accused of improperly, and perhaps illegally, using the USA PATRIOT Act to uncover personal information about U.S. citizens" (his Wikipedia article). Yup, that's right. There were people to quell who knew the fraud. Gonzales to the rescue of the shadow government.

After the Democrats forced Gonzales out of his job, Bush replaced him (2007) with Michael Mukasey, a friend of Rudy Giuliani. Need more be said? When Trump chose Rudy to be his TV-face lawyer, I knew that Trump had chosen to become complicit with the 9-11 scam. It also signalled that Trump was testing the waters of a Bush-circle flirtation, and Bill Barr seems to confirm that this flirtation is growing into a love affair...all the more reason that the Bush's would stage a faked act at the funeral to fool Trump's base into thinking that Trump wants to harm Bush. These updates may soon be back in the Middle-East spotlight, judging by this turn of events. Let's not forget Trump's choice of John Bolton to look after his foreign affairs. The reason that the social media is rife with Trump worshipers is that he's so bad, he needs to be whitewashed.

"Speaking in San Francisco to the California Commonwealth Club of California on March 27, 2008, Mukasey defended President Bush's program of wiretapping calls between Americans and suspected foreign terrorists without court authorization..." Yup, one of those guys, and he even went to Yale. We can ask whether "Mukasey" is a Massey / Mackay / Mackesy liner.

"On Jan. 2, 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey selected Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) John Durham of the District of Connecticut to conduct a criminal investigation into the destruction of interrogation videotapes by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)."

It may not have been sincere. It may have been a big rat choosing a small rat to oversee the criminal case of the chief rats, in just the same way that rats were chosen to lead and influence the investigations on suspicious 9-11 matters. Therefore, when you see what looks like a good guy just because he's positioned someone to get the bad guys, not so fast. It could be a mirage. Chances are, Mukasey was forced (against his will) to select an investigator over the CIA's illegal activity.

Durham's Wikipedia article: "Durham's final report [on the CIA] remains secret but was the subject of an unsuccessful lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act filed by The New York Times reporter Charlie Savage." It looks like a cover-up. "In September 2009, University of Toledo law professor Benjamin G. Davis attended a conference where former officials of the Bush administration had told conferences participants shocking stories, and accounts of illegality on the part of more senior Bush officials.[13] Davis wrote an appeal to former Bush officials to take their accounts of illegality directly to Durham." It says nothing concerning what Durham did about it, in which case it looks like he did nothing, or next to it.

Judicial watch has won another court battle, this time forcing Obama people (Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice) to answer questions they refused to answer. Why can't Republican congresspeople do the same merely through the courts? Even those Republicans we may think are the good guys start to look like a bag of tricks for their failures when JW is successful time after time through the courts. JW was the organization to discover Hillary's email-server scandal. The good-guy Republicans need a dozen organizations just like that. This is a short video worthy of celebration:

As the Benghazi investigations are over, the lawyer for Rice and Rhodes cannot refuse to answer based on the excuse that it might adversely affect an ongoing investigation.

As the Barr hearing continued this week, the topic came to Comey. Barr said: "Jim Comey is, as I've said, an extremely-gifted man who's served the country with distinction..." Do we expect Trump to pick such a man as this? In fact, my hope is that Barr goes after Trump to give this lousy president what he deserves. Until I saw Trump in action, I could not even perceive a man in his position, with golden opportunities galore to rid the government of rats, fail so miserably. It's depressing. It comes when the people need a savior like never before from the infestation of mobsters in government.

Someone might say that Barr is playing this hearing as independent as possible in order to fool the Democrats. But one cannot fool the Democrats because they are the masters of deception, knowing every trick. He says that he wants to heal the FBI and DoJ from what ails it now, yet his lovely compliments on Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey suggest that he doesn't have a clue as to how the job should be done. To fix this thing, those men all need to be indicted and punished. The top law enforcer cannot permit crime in such high levels to go unpunished. Trump is the one who has wanted an attorney general who does not indict. Therein is the problem, and so expect further corruption, further thievery, further tricks. A nation cannot last long under such a system; expect chaos. If you have the money, wouldn't it be a good time to prepare a country location where you can get away from it all? Call it your cottage until such time that it's needed.

The fact the senate Democrats are emphasizing Mueller so much is part of a long, continual admission, in Barr's very face, that the Mueller "probe" is political. This should disgust Barr, but instead he has given the probe respectability, which is why he comes off as a garbage man. He doesn't belong in the justice department, let alone in the top chair. It doesn't matter how well he knows the law, or how articulate he can speak on it, he does not deserve this job if he can't tell the Democrats to go fly a kite when they insist that the attorney general should respect the Mueller probe. I cannot as a Christian condone a situation in which Barr should lie to the senate merely to assure confirmation. Once he's lied and obtained conformation, he'll need to live up to the lie, to some significant degree, or lose respect for lying. He would be less garbage if he were lying than if he were telling the truth about the way he feels about Mueller. Republicans need only 50 votes, and it's a crying shame that several of them might not vote for Barr had he come out showing disfavor toward the Mueller probe.

Here is what Barr should have said: "As much as Robert Mueller has been my friend, his probe should have been over months ago if has lacks evidence for Russia collusion. If I find that he has had no evidence in that respect, I will shut the probe down, as is just and right, and if you democrats don;'t like it, then you're asking me to get politically involved for your sake. You're asking me to enter politics into the Mueller investigation for your own political gain, and I refuse to be a garbage man." Alas, Barr has shown himself to be a piece of junk to both Mueller and of the whacko leftists who dream collusion when there has been none.

Again, Barr is in no position to say, at this time, whether the Mueller probe should continue, for Barr is not supposed to know what Mueller has. A normal attitude for a normal man is one where he could not tell anyone right now whether the Mueller probe will continue. It simply depends on whether it's a justified probe to this point, and whether further time should be granted. Who can argue against such normal logic? But Barr would rather not take that approach because he wants only to be the AG...which is why he doesn't deserve the job. Mukasey was on Fox this week saying that Barr is a good pick.

When Democrat Chris Coons questioned Barr, he started to say he could fire Mueller, even at Trump's request, if there is just cause. However, this is what he should have said freely, not after a Democrat took him to this corner of the ring. Barr has nothing to fear by saying so, because truth is always best. If I were Barr, I would have said, "Mr. Coons, with all due respect, you are asking me to do your political will with Mueller. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? You sit there worried that I might do one political thing for the president while you're asking me to be wholesale on behalf of your like-minded political animals. I will not commit here in the senate to being your puppet. Do you have any questions that do not involve my acting political on your behalf?"

It occurred to me at this time that the Democrats are not fighting tooth and nail to resist Barr because his attitude has secured all the Republicans (53 in total), in which case the Democrats would come off as losers to fight it out. But if they act like they don't mind Barr, they come off not looking like losers.

Never mind Mueller for now. What will Barr do about Obama, Hillary, McCabe, the DNC "hack" that was covered up and blamed on Russia, etc? How long should we give him before seeing a sign that he's out to punish the Democrat deep state? But how can he? All of the corrupt actors had the same agenda as Mueller, and we can figure that they were winking at one another. If Barr goes against them, he's got to go against Mueller too. Fat chance for that, but it appears that we will shortly, in a few months, be able to give a preliminary assessment on what he will or will not do for the good guys. The election season is not much more than one year away; if Trump wants the corrupt handled properly to excite the voters, he has best get on it right away, and he had best not try to minimize the cleansing / punishments, for many voters can see through that. The wall issue continues to get under Trump's skin, making him hate his adversaries more than he wanted to. Trump needs to burst his wrath upon them, once and for all, stop listening to the swamp creatures on his own team, though God may have a different method to weaken our mortal enemies without the use of Trump.

The former leader of Judicial Watch, Larry Klayman, has come out against Bill Barr as a swamp creature. Klayman is committed already to this view from day one. He wrote an article on this that I've seen with World Net Daily, though it's more for his support of Bob Barr. I didn't know until now that he recommended Bob Barr as the director of Judicial Watch, which was turned down. It's probably best not to use current / former congressmen for something like Judicial Watch. Barr can help for free at any time, but if he'll help only if he gets paid, that seems like a problem. I don't hear much from Bob Barr on any matter.

I think that Bush Sr. was at least a pro-Nazi who installed the same into the CIA, and later into his government. When he used "new world order" as something we should all celebrate, it tipped us off that he was in cahoots with globalists secretly, for he did not disclose who his world-order pals were. I imagine Nazi's behind that push. In that dark light, should we assume that, for his attorney general, Bush chose a like-minded one? Now we're on it. Certainly he would have chosen a like-minded one. Besides, he tried to coerce Barr into accepting his own pick for the deputy attorney general, though Barr refused. I wonder what was up with that. You may know about the Ruby Ridge murders conducted by the FBI under Bush Sr:

After Randy Weaver, an outspoken white separatist living on a mountaintop in northern Idaho, was entrapped by an undercover federal agent, U.S. marshals trespassed on Weaver’s land and killed his 14-year-old son, Sammy. The following day, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi killed [not accidentally] his wife, Vicki, as she was standing in the cabin doorway [holding her child]. Horiuchi had previously shot Randy Weaver in the back after he stepped out of the cabin. The suspects were never given a warning or a chance to surrender and had taken no action against FBI agents. Weaver survived.

After an Idaho jury found Weaver not guilty on almost all charges, federal judge Edward Lodge slammed the Justice Department and FBI for concealing evidence and showing “a callous disregard for the rights of the defendants and the interests of justice.” The article's title: "William Barr’s Connection to Ruby Ridge, Defending FBI Snipers".

The article is dated this week, and is by The American Conservative. It tells that Bill Barr tried to save the FBI officers who murdered members of that family. Barr looks like he does not belong in the AG job. Barr appears corrupt. May I suggest the possibility that, because the FBI is not in the habit of shooting people who are not putting up a fight, that there was more to the killings than anyone knows. It may have been more a family spat between Nazi elements where the Weavers betrayed / disappointed some pro-Bush that Bush himself may have ordered the killings. Does Trump know nothing of Ruby Ridge??????? I didn't know that Barr oversaw that event as the attorney general until Friday, but wouldn't Trump have been informed of this as a priority by any number of his team members???? This is shocking.

How can we explain that the Democrats did not bring Ruby Ridge up in the senate hearing????? This is unbelievable. The Democrats must either be doing theater, or they are holding off until Barr gets confirmed to unleash the Ruby-Ridge story to make Trump look like a corrupt idiot. In the theater option, there must have been a behind-the-scenes deal between the Democrats and Republicans to give Barr the job. This stinks, and I think Trump is in on it. I'm tempted to say that the world might be safer with a Democrat president. Trump has now sealed my view of him as a fiend and a goon. He's dangerous. He's nothing but a bag of tricks, a deceiver. Do not vote for this man. Have nothing to do with supporting him. Trust God, not Trump. A Democrat president is no match for God's powers. Even if Barr goes after Hillary, he's still a piece of garbage. Garbage going after garbage. Here's what Trump should do to get his head back into proper sync:

Near the end of the six-minute video below, Barr says he doesn't "subscribe to this lock-her-up stuff." He even says, while quoting Mukasey's shocking statement, that there should be no one jailed for breaking laws while acting as politicians. This is the very attitude that we abhor. Barr is GARBAGE. And so is Trump. Barr is applying Sessions' mindset exactly: that jailing Hillary, for example, is merely a political payback, not to be permitted. Breaking the law is breaking the law, Mr. Barf. Politics has nothing to do with it. "[Jailing the opposition party] is something we just don't do here," Barr has the audacity to say, publicly.

Why can't the Republicans do what Judicial Watch single-handily did with California's corrupt voting system? Because, the Republican p[arty is filled with the Barfs of Washington.

The video below claims that Barr was a CIA operative. Note how close Barr is the Mueller's family? How can we explain that Trump would choose Barr at this time, therefore?

Follow the White Rabbit

In recent days, I've been tackling Qanon, whom I call, Q-Anon for new readers, or just, Q, because I want to emphasize the Q. I've postulated that he/she or some of his followers are perhaps deep-state tools trying to make monkeys out of anti-deep-staters, but there are other explanations, another being that he's out to make money with fabulous claims, though I don't even know if he has a money-making method. Another explanation is that he's a sincere anti-deep-stater but with a wrong perception of Trump's realities. His biggest problem now is his claim of being a Trump insider, for if this is a lie, and it appears to be, then it's hard to see him as sincere.

Perhaps he's an insider only by the contacts he holds. He claims to be a military man, and there are some well-intentioned military conservatives who look to Trump to change the game in Washington. Perhaps Q knows a high-level military man who claims to have inside info when he, the second man, is the liar / fantasizer. The best I can do for Q is that he's been hoodwinked by someone he trusts to be on the inside. It won't be the first time something like that has happened.

I've been wondering where Q has been one of my readers. If he's truly the Christian he claims to be, it becomes a possibility that he adopted "follow the white rabbit" from my white-rabbit events / discussions since the spring of 2017. No one seems to know where he or his followers got the phrase, "follow the white rabbit." My understanding is that he coined it for his followers. The phrase, in the context he has come to use it in, cannot be about John Podesta in a white-rabbit suit looking like he's promoting child sex. I don't have any evidence that my white-rabbit events point to his "follow the white rabbit," yet I'm intrigued, for I introduced the white rabbit (God introduced it to me, that is) not many weeks after I took a shot with a pool Q (so to speak), in a dream in the pool hall of Obama. I have no evidence that the pool cue was a pointer to Qanon.

My theory is that Q was reading my material in 2017, where God seemed to be pointing to an exposure of the deep state, and, believing me, Q ran too fast with it, ahead of God, and predicted a "storm" (indictments) for too soon, perhaps due mostly to things he was told by his military friends. The chances are slim the Q was reading me, but I just want you to know I'm considering the possibility. Assuming it's true, I then need to ask whether Q's friends and followers will be used by God in spite of their spinning their wheels at this time. How possibly could they be used to indict anyone? But wait, I don't know that God wants indictments at all. Perhaps He wants only to expose, to upset, the deep state, to make it more cautious and therefore slower in action, less bold, to protect His people at a future time.

There's little doubt that Q's going to have to change his attitude if no storm turns up in the next couple of months. His followers are catching on that military indictments at Gitmo are legally impossible for non-military people like Hillary and Obama. The more that Trump disappoints his followers, the more Q looks like a fake. If Q dares to come out now to say that Trump fired Kelly and Mattis as part of the tricks on the deep state, half his following will probably leave him within weeks, depending on how disappointed they have already become at this time. Q has had a fantastical view of Trump. Those who cannot accept Trump's attitude of laying off the deep state, or those who are disappointed time and time again, claim that he's incomprehensible due to being a genius. He's working on it, they think, and, any day now, he's going to pounce, as planned from a long time ago. I don't buy this.

Any day now, or any day last year, Trump could have said that Q is not anyone he knows. Why wouldn't the president do this much for his own base? Why would Trump let many in his base languish at the hands of some sQrewball? Is Trump too stingy to save them? Is it just too much work for the president to let out one tweet on Q? Or is he just laughing at Q's followers?

Or, is Q someone on his team, known by the president? Impossible, for Trump would not permit anyone on his team to give hint that there is a super ambush in the works. At least not for good reason, and I see none. A secret ambush ceases to be if Q spouts off weekly about it. This is the thing that most argues for a fake Q. I don't want to associate my white-rabbit predictions with a failed program by Q. What are my white-rabbit predictions? Actually, I don't know. All I know is that God has emphasized a white-rabbit theme, and, I think, it pertains partly to Podesta pedophilia, but also to Hillary's crimes. However, I can't nail down any predictions from the white-rabbit Signs I think I've received. My white-rabbit theme superimposes upon Q's "follow the white rabbit" excellently, for we both pin it to the same crime ring, and both expect God to perform some chastisement, in the least, against the mobsters. We all hope that Q's storm is worse than he's ever imagined it, but then it might be Armageddon, for all we know at present.

I haven't had a dream or snap vision that I've considered to be from God in quite a while. I've had dreams, but I cannot recall them clearly enough when I awake, not enough to be of any value. The last possible Sign was earlier this week when I saw two squirrels together for the first time in years. I have not see two together since, though I've put out food daily, and it's Friday night as I speak. I face the window as I write; and I see the squirrel approach often to the garage. I have been seeing its foot prints in the snow for a few weeks, but never has there been evidence of two squirrels in those tracks. Where did that second squirrel come from on that one morning? They way it happened caused me to think that it was a Mueller-Barr relationship (that God is pointing to). That's all I have.

Q actually claimed to know what the envelopes said at the Bush funeral. He didn't reveal the words, but implied the envelopes to be from law enforcement. I find that to be impossible. Law enforcement wouldn't distribute such notes at a funeral, let's get real. Perhaps Q is leading people to a rabbit trail's dead-end, to nowhere deliberately. Q's input on the funeral is the single-most thing tending to show me that Trump and the Bush circle are now both involved, in concert, in fooling Republican Christians and similar others. Yeah-yeah, the jailings are next week, or the week after that, and it never happens, laugh-laugh. That's Q's white-rabbit trail thus far.

Meanwhile, the leftist media continues to lie and to frame Trump with lies, without the DoJ taking any media to court to stop this criminal activity. Bill Barr has essentially said this past week that this attitude is all acceptable to the point of not trying to jail the perpetrators. Below is the criminal BuzzFeed story of this week which would have gotten severe traction with the ludicrous leftists had not Mueller come out of his closet to discredit the story. The fact that dark-room Mueller piped up publicly shows how on-edge he is to fulfill his end of responsibility now that he himself is on thin ice with his own mission of framing Trump. Or, to put it another way, Mueller is now concerned that Barr might turn on him, and wants to do the right-DoJ thing whereas he wouldn't have bothered had he still been under the Sessions-Rosenstein umbrella (of cover):

Whatever Q is for real, the hope that he holds out for anti-deep-staters can become a powerful / energetic exciting celebration if, for example, God acts to expose the deep state in spite of the Trump-team cover-up. Barr may yet go after some deep-staters, as he feels is necessary so that he doesn't look like a deep-state protector, but I think he's apt to leaving them alone if they are Catholic, and he will also ignore the call of Protestant / evangelical Christians to jail them. I think I am onto his attitude, of viewing this call as more a nuisance due to political junkies than a moral obligation to cleanse government. Barr is deeply corrupt (rotten) if he thinks no one should be jailed just because Republicans are wanting their jailings. It doesn't make it a political-junkie movement for people to want jail terms if the crimes are actually there. It's wrong to go after politicians only if, for example, leftists have devised false evidence against them.

Another thing. By not indicting political crimes when they fester in the open for all to see, the deep state can celebrate the fact that it rips the parties further apart, for the deep state feels safer, and is safer, when the people are divided. The rule that a divided society must always be maintained cannot be any secret to the deep state. Until the left starts to act on behalf of punishing their own, the deep state will thrive.

I am confident that there is a large number of Republicans who would like to see corrupt Republicans jailed, for people of truth are far-more ample in the Republican party. But the left has few people placing truth above politics i.e. criminals are not viewed as criminals if they are influential leaders against the Republicans. I have seen many comments in youtube videos where Republican supporters would like to see their own, influential leaders, for example, Trey Gowdy, exposed and punished if they are discovered to have corruption. This is the correct attitude to have, which is woefully lacking in the liberal camp.

There's nothing like clearing the societal air like the exposure of wrong-doing. However, we have got to apply the mercy of God in things, which I think directs us to ignoring / forgiving common errors or misjudgments, or even outright petty crimes like lying to a FBI officer when that officer is going somewhere that isn't correct. I think I can now see why Mueller is making a mountain out of a molehill in the lying-under-oath department: because the petty Mueller team is trying to get Trump on the same charge for lack of anything else. That BuzzFeed story appears to be such an attempt, that went dud. I wonder why it went dud. Did Trump call Mueller and threaten him if that story was permitted to continue? Did Trump force Mueller's hand? Possibly. Mueller has been impotent probably due to the many things Trump holds against him, which is a form of blackmail. Trump is keeping his cards unplayed to keep his enemies at bay, but this is not to be celebrated because the better thing to do, which is for the people rather than Trump's political survival, is to expose the deep crimes of his enemies.

This BuzzFeed story is writing on the wall for Trump, telling that the Mueller-Cohen "team" will try to frame him if the opportunity arises. Now is just not a good time because it begs for Barr's immediate entry into the affair, and with that one step, he may ask for Mueller's secret notes and reports-in-the-works. That's what Mueller is likely afraid of at this time, until he finds reassurance of Barr's willingness to accept his unethical methods. That is, he needs Barr's assurance that he too is anti-Trump, desirous to see him go down with a frame job. Would Barr do that? From the duplistic speak I've heard from this man, it's possible. Even if he sides with Trump against the deep state, he can yet be garbage versus garbage. If Mueller were not garbage, he would have ended his probe a month after starting out.

Jesus made the point blatant that we are to forgive when someone asks for it. That is, when someone sincerely admits a sin or crime and promises not to do it again, we are to forgive. It's hard to say whether he was including hard crimes into that doctrine. It may be true that God will forgive the harshest of crimes if a person is remorseful, but that doesn't tell us whether, in the New-Testament jurisdiction, He will yet punish crimes. I can fathom forgiveness with punishment, whereas others think that forgiveness is not forgiveness if punishment is attached. I fall on the scripture: he does not punish us as our sins deserve.

Punishment is deserved when a guilty person is made to understand that what they are doing is wrong. If they then continue in the wrong happily, I don't think they will get relieved of punishment if they get remorseful only after they get caught, for example with cuffs on their wrists. Republican Christians may be oblivious to the possibility that many of Trump's woes at this time, and into the future, are part of God's punishment on him for things he did wrong prior to becoming the president. When the Bible portrays God continuously on his throne throughout New-Testament times, it's not literal. It's a symbolic picture of a Judge judging our thoughts and actions, punishing (disciplinarily) even His own children in order to correct them. Punishment is needed for correction, for the benefit of the community. Woe to the terrible rat that gets to the grave without getting caught, for this is the one God cares nothing about, the one who did not get correction. Woe to the rats who get away with their crimes and celebrate what they think is their cleverness. This is a special class of people whom God wants to surprise in the meanest-possible way as they awake on the other side of this life.

The BuzzFeed story claims that unknown prosecutors have the evidence to prove that Trump directed Cohen (Trump's former lawyer) to lie before congress concerning a Russian project. It's all so juicy, thick meat awash with still-flowing blood for the liberal media hounds, and utterly glorious for Mueller because it arrives while he's downcast, varnishing his own casket. It's the fantasy that all liberal viewers have been waiting two years for. It's like they all had an unexpected resurrection for a day, only to sink into a gloomier dungeon room with Mueller's surprise comment, "go back to sleep" (my translation). Trump can't have fun with this because, as the story sits at its face value, the implication is that Cohen told the prosecutors that Trump directed him to lie. This means that Cohen may have "admitted" something similar to Mueller. That word is in quotation marks because it's intended (by me) to be a false admission, created by Cohen to save his own skin from Mueller's whiplashing. SNAP-SNAP, goes the whip, "you'll talk sooner or later, Mr. Cohen, or my name isn't Skullduggery."

The possibility is that someone privy to Mueller's bag of tricks was unhappy with Mueller's choice for his final trick, and decided to come out with the trick of their choice. Mueller decided he had best kill it. So, we await Mueller's final trick, if he dares play it. We don't yet know how long Barr will grant him to play it, but Barr did give the impression: "take your sweet time, sir, I respect your mission" (my translation). I pray that I'm wrong about Barr. I pray he's on the side of good. But wouldn't a good man show just a little that Mueller's final report is already months overdue?

Another way to explain Mueller's coming out to oppose BuzzFeed is: "forgive me, jailer Barr, for I have sinned. I repent. Don't lock this old man up."

I've just learned from an article that Mueller's spokesman is Peter Carr, an employee from the DoJ, and from Utah, same as Mr. Huber the apparent do-nothing. Carr was once with Orrin Hatch. Are we talking a Mormon here? Wikipedia apparently has no Peter Carr article. The Internet almost knows nothing about him. Who appointed him to be Mueller's say-nothing spokesman? My guess: Rosenstein. That makes Huber suspect as Rosenstein's pick to do the deep-state investigations. How convenient. How it makes Trump look like a clown to have these operators doing tricks under his nose. They know Trump's busy giving speeches, trying to get re-elected; in the meantime, they aspire to run things. A Yahoo article on the man says, "Carr has been at the Justice Department since 2007 [Bush year], and he has regularly handled sensitive topics and high-profile investigations."

Barr cannot view the FISA scandal and its several tentacles as the mere conspiracy of political junkies unless he wants to be treated maliciously as Sessions was treated, by the voters. My take this week is that Barr will promise to cleanse the FBI without punishing beyond forcing someone out of their jobs. Is this a sufficient way to handle this situation? The entire Q storm and it clouds (Q supporters) are depending on Trump's new pick for the attorney general. Q might even dare to say that Trump purposefully let Sessions go because it was part of the plan to have Barr flinging out the lightning bolts. The problem for Q thus far is that Barr is looking like a dry cloud. No one has seen any updrafts from this man that promises a whirlwind.

Perhaps he's just acting a false part in order to appeal to Democrats; everyone's asking if this is his game, and it probably is. But if all we have are his words this past week, and his attitude at Ruby Ridge, I'd say that Barr comes more with cold and inflicting sleet upon the fires of "conspiracy theorists." I think the Bush circle wants to quell conspiracy theorists because they're dangerous to them. Barr, because he was supporting criminals, would be interested in ignoring / poisoning conspiracy theorists as far as he can. Nothing can make Trump's voters frown on Trump than a second blunder with the attorney-general pick, and here we seem to be. Sorry, Q, this does not play well for your predictions and claims.

My first reflections upon the so-called caravans was that the Democrats were behind them for obvious reasons. But I also entertained the possibility that Republicans had sponsored them for Trump's secret purposes. Since then, I've wondered whether the wall is actually to keep Americans inside, under some rough times planned for the country by the neo-Bush goons or something similar, which theory comes simultaneous with my observations that Trump has possibly formed a partnership with Bush-circle goons. Hmm. This new caravan, said to be bigger than the ones before, may have the purpose of persuading Republicans to stay with Trump as he continues the shut-down.

Some, for example, Josh Bernstein, are saying that now is the time for Trump to fire some bad-apple Democrat government workers whom have been laid off by the shut-down. But my expectations include the persecution of Christians, and I am not at all persuaded that Trump is pro-Christian in Truth, for he seems to be handing the country to the vatican, which would love to persecute Protestants in America once it gets the upper hand. As soon as the vatican becomes barely powerful enough to topple the Protestant will for the country, that's when the main war will begin, secretly of course, for the vatican works like a quiet, slithering snake. Barr is a part of that snake, is he not? Therefore, Trump might fire Christians in government in order to weaken their political / societal powers. Spy technology, and online blogs, etc. have created the situation in which every outspoken Christian in known to a government databank; we cannot hide easily from persecution once it begins against us. We are taking note that the presidency under both Obama and Trump has become a worshipful thing. Not good. Do not worship or adore a world power; reject a person claiming to be a Christian who is also adoring Trump. Keep your senses.

One of the worst scenarios being kicked around as per a deep-state pitch for a massive take-over is their bringing down the electrical grid for weeks or months -- however long it takes for it to wipe away enemies or seize the wealth -- while blaming it on a foreign enemy. My contention is: how can anyone possibly shut down the electrical grid for months? Impossible, unless it's an inside job. The very idea of this possibility is probably being fed to us by the deep state in case it needs to unleash it upon the nation. An EMP attack cannot destroy power lines or power poles or power towers, but only sensitive equipment, which begs the question on why they don't make the sensitive equipment less sensitive. The reality is that they can back up all sensitive equipment in a protected chamber, and they can discover exactly which parts of an electrical line has been destroyed, repairable by the following day or two. There is no reason that they cannot manage to replace an entire unit with sensitive parts in a day or less.

It seems to me, therefore, that people need to start sharing about this so that the rats don't actually use it against the people. Once the population is more certain that a months-long black out can be fingered against their own government, the latter will be far-less likely to use it. It's even possible for the deep state to act in this way apart from the support or wink of the government i.e. the president. A measure of deep-state protection at a critical time would be an Internet outage, but for enemy cleansing, and the seizing of wealth Hitler style, they could knock out the grid, though they can't do it nationwide unless they claim a massive attack from Russia and/or China. And this could be half the reason that both countries are being slimed at this time.

When you start hearing reports of foreign enemy about to attack the United States, expect that it's the preliminary part of a false-flag event. We saw a small example with Korea in Trump's early days, but, thankfully, it seemed that Trump denied the CIA and military at that time...not necessarily because Trump is an angel. He may have had not-so-angelic reasons for quashing that Korea hoax. For example, his promise to make America great again isn't going to happen under a severe, manufactured crisis. So long as Trump wants a thriving, corporate world, the deep state needs to exercise an EMP attack without his will. Nor can the deep state knock out the Internet without also shutting down much of the corporate machinery.

If we imagine Hitlerians in the CIA seeking to produce a "crystal night" against Protestant lambs, the Catholicization and Jewishization of the Supreme Court and the justice department can play to that picture. Rosenstein is a nice Jewish name, isn't it? Mike Pence was once a Catholic, and he may still be, secretly. Catholics have pro-lifers too, but they yet send their money to the vatican corporation. The vatican supported Hitler. An false-flag EMP is mass murder. The only people capable of conducting such a thing are whackos like Hitler.

Clearly, the exposure of the whackos is important for keeping them from acting in hideous ways. It is a very good thing just to know who they are because they then know that they could be killed even before the false-flag has come to an end. If people know beforehand the persons responsible for the false flags, those people are in severe danger of being shot to death by the good guys. You can play tricks on the people, and laugh at them for fooling them with false reports, but something like an EMP attack will have good people putting gun barrels down the throats of the Muellers and Bush's of this country, risk or no risk. If they start to kill the weak and the aged, the sick and the poor, their relatives and friends will retaliate. That North-Korea failure in Hawaii probably set the deep state back for a long time. People saw what it was. God has the last say on their plots.

If I were to tell you that the department of Homeland Security put out a warning against the destruction of the grid, you'd think I was nutty. The DHS happens to be a Bush baby. And it did put out that warning:

One could get the impression that the grid has been deliberately modified or set up to be knockout-able in case the Hitlerians want to use such a dreadful crisis. I have a scenario to paint at this point: prior to the election, Trump was convinced by certain people in cahoots with Homeland Security to run an election campaign on the border wall, not realizing that it was the plan of the deep state planning an EMP attack. The deep state was concerned that Mexico would frown terribly on the United States if Americans started to flood over the border during their EMP attack, complicating things. Trump agreed to the wall, and, when becoming the president, Homeland Security agreed to claim openly that the wall would be of great help to their tasks on illegal immigration.

Trump hired John Kelly to run Homeland Security in the south of the country. The crisis on that front was rolling along well when the deep state convinced Trump to bring John Kelly into the White House. Eventually, Trump caught wind that there was something fishy about Kelly, and he was removed. Now what? The wall promise is in high gear in spite of these things, because Trump has been made to believe, by his "advisors" (how many are his enemies?), that he'll lose 2020 if he doesn't build the wall. The deep state, to deepen the crisis, has formed another caravan, with Mexico's wink.

That's my scenario, and while there is no evidence for any of it, I think we should keep in mind that the wall may not be in the works for the sake or protecting Americans. If not, then we need to discover the real reason, which is where keeping Americans from getting out comes into play. But if that's correct, we need to discover what sort of plot could be in place that would make Americans abandon their lives at home for a retreat into Mexico? A massive electrical failure is one of a few scenarios to fit that puzzle, and that's the worse news: there are other ways to devastate people.

In the Homeland-Security report for an EMP attack, it suggested for all people to have two weeks of extra food on hand at all times. My take is that this report is not to save Americans, but to take the opportunity to portray falsely that the grid cannot be protected from an EMP attack. There was a time when there was no such thing as sensitive equipment in the power lines. My understanding is that it was all simple, merely wires and electrical amplifiers / boosters that got the power to travel more mileage down the lines. No computer motherboards needed. Why can't there be a routing system at all electrical stations that routes power through the old / simple / hard system automatically, as the sensitive computer equipment fails? Of course they can do this, and this is why the Homeland-Security warning seems fraudulent to me. It is evidence that the goons have managed to use some excuses, ordered by the legislature, for providing less than a fail-proof grid system.

On the video page above: "If there is a severe EMP and x-formers are blown, would the "grid" not be down for YEARS? Since the U.S. makes almost no x-formers anymore, made in places like Germany, Switzerland, etc." Oh no, Hitlerians in Germany might own the spare parts too. They might say they are on back-order, and they might lose the parts on delivery to the United States. How could a country be so irresponsible as to fail making their own electric-grid parts at home? Ask the Hitlerians. Ask why Homeland Security doesn't correct that situation if it thinks the grid can't survive an EMP attack.

This would be a good time to repeat that I, fully innocent of all charges, while having a property in Texas, was framed by an office of Homeland Security, wherein three male officers signed an affidavit claiming that I assaulted one or more of their officers. If any of this were true, I wouldn't be telling you this story. They tried to jail me. I was forced to appear in court with an assault charge against me. In one affidavit, they said I reached for one of the officer's gun, which I did not. In another affidavit, he said I made a fist to strike someone, which I did not. It was my wake-up call, and probably God's message to you, that the American government is corrupt, where leaders of law enforcement can depend on their underlings to sign false statements in order to frame and jail innocent people. May God's wrath burn these people alive.

When they chained my feet and my hands to drive me to the jailhouse for the night (before court), they put me into the back of a small unmarked car (no one would think it was a police car), with two men in civilian's clothing in the front seats. They stopped on the crest of a bridge above a river for some 20 minutes, and told me they were waiting for a third officer to arrive. I thought they were going to throw me over the bridge railing. The third man never showed up, and they proceeded to drive me to the jail house. These two men may not have wanted to throw me over, and so took the excuse that the third guy, perhaps the boss' pet, didn't arrive soon enough. Whew. It was dark out, and I would have felt like I was falling to hell if they had thrown me over. It's not a wonder that I want to see this type of government corruption "burned." This type of government corruption has made it on shows like Hannity, and he seems very prepared to continue his assault upon it, though purely because the deep state tried to frame Trump. Stay off bridges, Mr. Trump.

I agree with Trump's premise for a border wall, even if it's on the drug problem alone, but I question his motives for wanting the wall. There is the speech writer, and then there is the untold motive. A speech is near perfect for the moral cause, because it's written that way, but motives can be immoral. Rather than his speech telling us how many drugs are pouring over the border, I'd like to hear how his justice department has doubled the arrest of drug lords inside the United States, or how he's reaching out to the Mexican government to help catch their drug lords. I could then take him more seriously on the reasons he states for needing the wall. There's a good chance that there are no hidden motives for his wall, but it's my job to entertain other possible realities that might adversely affect my brothers and sisters, for the nation is filled with anti-Christs in high places. If I understand the spirit world right, the spirits working through human agency have the chief aim of thwarting, spoiling, and finally killing, the people of Jesus.

Who really killed the Americans reportedly as a result of illegal immigration lately? Was it the deep state that wants the wall? Would they kill Americans to get their way? Many are saying, yes, they would.

No Planes Went Through the Twin Towers

I've realized a way to prove that aircraft wings cannot slice through the columns of the twin towers in New York. Anyone with a will to view the Bush government and the military therein as wicked enough to conduct the 9-11 scam can plainly see and accept that there was no plane at the Pentagon "crash," nor was there a Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania. Already, you have two good reasons to deny planes at the twin towers. But if you cannot yet accept that the government would be that evil, then you will allow your own soul to be deceived on this matter, and you will lie to others telling them that planes were in fact involved.

Ask: how could the main metal (probably aluminum) beams of commercial-plane wings slice through the heavier, stronger steel columns of the twin towers, each 40 inches apart? The main metal pieces along each wing are "spars." Some jets have three spars per wing. We first of all note that each column was essentially a single piece from ground floor to roof, for each piece of column (about 14 feet long, my guess) had a stretch (don't know exactly how long, but pictures are online) inserted into an adjacent piece.

In other words, each piece of column had a socket into which the next piece was telescopically slipped. If the ends of each piece were merely bolted together without telescoping together, the plane spars could conceivably rip the bolts off and separate the columns, thus allowing the spars to penetrate into the building. But the telescoping feature made the joints of the columns at least as strong as the rest of the columns. There is no way that a horizontal strike against a column could slip any column piece vertically out of its telescoped position. Each spar, therefore, could only slice through the columns, if the spar were strong enough to do so. This is an important part of the groundwork needed before tackling the predicted result of a plane crash, but there are other considerations.

If you take a look at the enlarged pictures of the holes in the buildings, you can learn that the fiends who created the holes with explosives had the columns busted apart at the joints, which is wrong, for this requires that the columns be slipped out of their sockets. A horizontal pressure on the columns cannot accomplish such a thing. A horizontal force, if indeed it sliced clear through the columns, will also bend the columns back, yet we do not generally see such bending back because explosives could not as easily be set to perform such a thing. Just look at where the columns are supposedly sliced through, noting that the columns are yet perfectly vertical. However, this is not my main point.

Both above and below the point where a spar would contact the building, all columns are attached to one another, and also reinforced with concrete floors behind them, so that they will not bend back until fully compromised (sliced through). The most that can be done, if the columns are not sliced though, is to dent them (for lack of a better word). On the other hand, one end of each wing is attached to nothing so that it's predicted to bend back easily. There is no comparison, in this regard, between the wing strength and the column strength. This is how you can know as a certainty that the ones who fabricated the holes in both buildings were morons. For they had the hole in each building almost as wide as the full wing span of each aircraft. Impossible, for as a wing bends, the wing's maximum distance from the plane's center is reduced. Once the upper and lower ends of the spars begin to rip, say bye-bye, the metal has been compromised, and bending of the wings goes with ease, with the rip acting as a mere hinge.

A spar is in danger of ripping, on a compounded basis, the further the wing is from the center of the plane. As per how the morons designed their holes, there were, per wing, something like 20 columns sliced through...which is nearly the full wing span. This was their unwitted admission of a hoax, if anyone cares to delve into it. This is still not my main point.

In the faked videos showing a plane passing through a building, there is ZERO visible sign of wing bend-back. There is no sign that any part of the paper-thin (so to speak) fuselage crumpled and fell to the ground. The morons had the entire plane slipping into the building without a splash of debris on the outside, as though they didn't have the money or the smarts to give this hoax job to someone with some basic understanding of crashes. Instead, it appears that they gave the task to someone doing a simplistic, inadequate video manipulation. However, I'll tell you below why there may have been a reason forcing them to provide this unacceptable video.

The plane we see was never in the scene on any day. The plane was pasted to a scene of the building likely taken before 9-11. You do understand that the CIA / American military are vast, money-laden organizations capable of such a hoax?

I don't know the metal thicknesses of the spars nor the columns, but neither were as thin as a quarter inch. The law requires that columns have safety factors, meaning that if each column is deemed to need 3/4" steel to perform as needed, the building owner would be forced to use more like 1" or 1 1/4" thickness, just in case. On the other hand, safety factors for wing spars are expected to be more lenient because the overall weight of the plane is itself a factor for safer flight. And there's the kicker, that the wing spar is going to be only as thick as absolutely needed, merely to hold the weight of the fuel upon the wings, and to handle the air pressures against the wing. Information on this topic is hard / impossible to find, possibly by design of the deep state.

I have seen online what the spars look like for the aircraft reportedly at the twin towers. They are no different than an ordinary I-beam (shaped like an I). Each spar looked to be about 24 inches tall, and at both its bottom and top ends there is a width of probably less than a foot. The latter are the horizontal sections that would begin to rip before bending; the 24 inch section would bend with ease (like a flap) due to its vertical direction. I can't refind the webpage that showed the spars, but at the 3:46 point of the video below, a wing spar for an airbus A380 is shown that looks (hard to say exactly) to be about 20 inches tall and eight inches wide. At 3:55, we can see that each wing has two such spars, one on its front, and one on its back. The thickness of the aluminum looks to be about 3/4 inches maximum.

The video below tells that the spars of each wing are bolted to a central "wing box" (at the fuselage) with 1,600 bolts. Just so you know. It means that one spar does not span from wing tip to wing tip. We now ask whether the spars should be ripped away from the bolts with the first few collisions with columns. None of us have the engineering smarts to be able to answer that question, especially as we don't know the size and strength of the bolts, or the exact dimensions of the columns and spars.

The columns were about 14" square. At first glance, if we are fooled by the power of a tornado to stick a piece of straw into a tree trunk, we might think that, no matter how weak or strong the wing spars, they will slice through the columns if the velocity of the wing is fast enough. Straw cannot penetrate a tree unless it hits it needle-like, which is not the case with a wing spar striking a column in a plane crash. Or, put it this way: why didn't the columns slice the wing spar into pieces?

If we swing a baseball bat fast enough across a wooden stick a 1/2' thick, whether stable or even hanging in the air, the bat will essentially slice through the stick. But if we swung the stick just as fast across the bat, it's still the stick that gets sliced. Ditto with the plane wings coming across the columns; the wings are as susceptible to being sliced as are the columns. It's not true that the moving object is the one doing the slicing everytime to whatever it strikes. Therefore, why have I never found one webpage detailing which was stronger, the wing spars of the 767 jets, or the columns at the height where we see the holes? The answer should be obvious: the deep state has arranged that no one should be seen talking about this. This is the Achilles heel of thier plane hoax.

And that's my main point: it is not true that a wing spar could penetrate a steel column if the velocity of the spar is fast enough, for the column is as potentially capable of slicing through the wing spar as vice-versa. It depends on which is the stronger of the two, though the shape of the two items has some say too. The good news: the morons designed the building holes with almost 20 columns sliced through per wing spar. Our question is not whether the spars could penetrate one column, but more like 35-40 (both wings). You can see here that Achilles is in extreme pain in his heel.

Where is the engineer who tells the world how much force is lost when slicing through one column? The engineer can easily discover the force of the plane because it's full weight, tanked up with fuel or otherwise, is knowable online. The total force is as easy as weight x speed. He can use any velocity figure he wants, whether 300, 400, or even 600 mph. The only thing he/she needs to know now is the type of steel in the columns (or their resistive strengths), and the column dimensions. Surely people are free to discover the dimensions of the columns at the holes, aren't they? In that case, why have I never read those dimensions from any of the myriads of 9-11 truthers I've come across? It's a well-guarded secret, because the planes did not penetrate into the buildings as their holes and videos dictate, meaning also that no planes hit the buildings. That is one massive, Hitlerian-style crime upon the world, yet the imposters have been free to live in luxury since. Soon, their younger followers can do something similar, being more careful this time not to get caught.

An engineer in the right field would be able to tell how much the plane must slow down per one column pierced. He/she will be able to tell us whether there is any velocity left after, say, 15 columns are pierced through, to slice yet another. He/she will also be able to tell us whether the columns should instead slice the spars. It's engineers who told the manufacturer that 1,600 bolts are needed to safely keep the wings attached to the wing box, and the wing box attached to the plane's main spine.

Likely, many of the 1,600 bolts are not for attaching the spars to the box (under the passenger seats), but the box to the plane. How many bolts attached the spars to the box; that's all the engineer needs to know when asking whether the impact would have ripped the wings clear off the plane. I say, yes, that should have happened, because the engineers did not need to make the attachment anywhere near as strong as needed for a collision into a sky-scraper.

Although there may have been three spars per wing, the fact is, they are bolted to the wing box at some distance from one another. This means that when the front spar strikes a column, the middle and back spars have not yet struck; the front spar alone takes the full load. Can it survive? How much damage does it suffer per collision?

Where is the heroic engineer who wants to tell the truth to the world? If the engineer starts the battle between the strength of the first steel column versus the one aluminum spar, who wins? Which does more damage to the other? Surely, the steel column is king here. One expects detailed article after detailed article, by engineers, on this topic, but you will not find them easily, if they can be found at all. Google will be your demon in hiding them.

"In the lower levels, the thickness [of twin-tower columns] was most frequently around 4 inches (10 centimeters), while at higher floors, it could be as thin as 0.25 inch (0.64 centimeter) {source: FEMA}" (Google query). First of all, I don't trust FEMA for the purposes of 9-11, but, secondly, note that the person giving this statement did not give the thickness at the height where the buildings' holes were made? Why not? Who cares about the 1/4" thickness on the very top floor?

If the bolts do not fully give way per collision, the spar will want to rip closest to the bolts (under the passengers). The collisions would not be simultaneous, for the wings angle backward toward the plane's tail. Therefore, there would be some time between each of the 35-40 collisions (actually, the situation is such that, very soon, no matter what the angle of approach to the building, there would be two collisions simultaneously, one each per wing). With each collision, wing velocity is reduced because the building is fully stable. Even if we find that the front spar was stronger than a column, it wasn't by much. And that's why reduced velocity would eventually make columns impenetrable (non-slice-able), at which time the wing will begin to bend (next to the wing box), followed eventually by a ceasing of plane penetration into the building. It's either going to end up stuck in the hole, or fall to the ground.

A wing would pack much more punch if it's fastened to the wing box (has the entire weight of the plane attached), otherwise, if a wing becomes disconnected from the plane, the weight factor of the forward force is drastically reduced (total force is weight combined with velocity). These are the basic mechanics of this crash scenario.

If, after a few collisions slicing clear through the columns, we imagine all bolts snapped per wing, thus separating a wing from the plane, the wing will become parallel with the wall, which is to say that the full wing would strike the wall flat for a striking upon all columns simultaneously, making it impossible to slice through any column even if we wish to imagine that it's possible to slice through some or all of them one collision at a time. In other words, snapped bolts or not, the holes in the buildings should not be nearly as long as the full factory wing spans. In that case, Trump has a responsibility to discover the killers of the horror, and to punish them ever-so-hard so that generations pass before anyone ever tries the same thing again. If Trump turns a blind eye, we might get another horror soon. The killers were largely in the Pentagon, clearly.

A link I offered above shows the dimensions of the columns, but gives the 1/4" thickness at the very top, and a 2.5" thickness at the ground, yet, to our insult, it hides the thickness where the planes struck. That cannot be coincidental. It's a cover-up.

I think we will all agree that the strength of each column was at least close to that of each wing spar. Let's entertain the idea that the spars were stronger than each column, pound-per-pound of material. This does not alter the fact that each wing was free at one end, making each wing highly susceptible to bending in both the forward and backward direction. At each collision, the spar part between the point of spar-column contact and the wing box would bend backward toward the tail, while the spar part between the same spar-column contact and the wing tips would bend forward toward the building (in the latter, the bending point would be at the point-of-contact). The bending takes place while the spars are in the process of slicing through the columns. The fact that most of (over 90 percent) the front spar begins to bend forward means that the tendency is not toward the front spar becoming sandwiched with the central spar. Instead, at first, the two spars get further from one another.

On the other hand, the more that part of the front spar bends back, the closer the two spars come to being sandwiched, at which point the resistance to spar bending is doubled. When the two spars are forced back to the point of reaching the back spar, the resistance to spar bending is tripled. However, by that time, much velocity (i.e. force) has been lost. The question then becomes whether there is enough total force to slice clear through the remaining columns. In other words, it doesn't matter how strong the spar resistance to bending, the plane loses the same force when getting through one column.

The first collision slices through the column, and the spar experiences a little bending. The second collision is further from the wing box and therefore increases the bending power at the box. The spar slices through the second column (same happens on the opposite side of the plane), and the wing bends back more than it did in the first collision, etc., etc. It's up to you to decide whether the wing would survive intact at the wing box by the time of the 20th collision roughly 100 feet from the wing box. That's what the morons provided you, a picture in which the very tip areas of the wings were able to slice through columns, with the wing, therefore, still firmly attached to the wing box. Mr. Trump knows that this is impossible, yet Mr. Trump wants to get re-elected and therefore refuses to punish the ones responsible for this great evil. He would rather be partnered with them if they could get him re-elected in a deal he can't resist.

There can be no doubt that there is a high safety factor built into those 1,600 bolts we crossed above. We might assume that only 800 are needed to perform safe flight, but that the extra 800 are just-in-case bolts. However, no one would think that the government mandated enough bolts to resist a crash into a steel building. Hello? Does anyone really think that the wing attachment to the wing box can survive a wing-spar slicing though 20 bend-resistant columns 14 inches square and probably more than an inch thick??? Are you crazy? How big were the bolts, anyway? May we know?

Let's entertain an indestructible wing-box attachment system. Not even God can separate the wings from the plane. You still have about 40 reasons as to why the tip area of the wings could not slice clear through a column, for with each of the reasons, the plane slows down. That's 20, consecutive slow downs, per side of the plane. Would the wings be more apt to fold back as the columns gain the upper hand, resisting a full slice-through? Yes, if the wings cannot penetrate through, the wings will be forced to fold back. If the wings begin to fold back when the columns start to resist a full slice-through midway across the wing span, there's no way that the wing tip will span as far out as the 20th column (from the fuselage) by the time the tip arrives to the building.

To put it another way, when the moment arrives that the wing can no longer penetrate a column, that one column will become the outer limit of the hole in the building, yet the morons had the outer limit at roughly the 20th column, forcing the team that provided the faked video, of the plane entry, to have the plane enter like a hot knife through warm butter. They had no choice but to make the entire wing penetrate the building practically unscathed, for the too-great width of the hole dictated that scene. The morons didn't know what sort of video they would need until they saw how big their holes were, for until the bombs were detonated, they had no idea what the holes would definitely look like.

In fact, for all we know, if the holes didn't come out acceptably, the buildings were supposed to be downed before the news was able to get good shots of the holes. Why did the fiends take about an hour, after creating the holes, to down the buildings? For most of the time between the hole-forming explosions and the visibility of the holes, the latter were obscured by smoke. The fiends couldn't yet see their holes, and when they did see them, maybe they were unhappy. If we say that they were giving time to save lives in the first hour, why did they kill even the firemen still in the buildings? Couldn't they have waited a few more hours before downing the buildings? Alas, there must have been complications. There were things happening inside serving as evidence of an inside job. These witnesses were better off dead, therefore, meaning that the morons are also guilty of mass murder. Thankfully, no one in the planes died horrible deaths (at least at the "crash" sites), but people were crushed ruthlessly in the buildings.

In the article below, a hole is called a scar; others call it a gash. This quote suggests a key revelation: is a straightforward enough task to confirm that the real scar measured about 37 pillars [columns] across. According to FEMA however the scar measured a mere 23 pillars in width, less than two-thirds of the true figure. It is clear also that FEMA's rendition of the shape of the scar is way off the mark.

In other words, FEMA, which cannot be trusted, apparently used a false version of the hole (south tower), when experts came together to explain to the legislators, details of the "attack." FEMA had a smaller hole, underscoring that the morons were morons to make it as large as we saw it on television. If the plane struck perfectly horizontal upon the wall, the tip-to-tip span would have been significantly more than 37 columns. Has anyone ever heard of any person on the 9-11 commission complaining about FEMA offering a false plane hole? Are they altogether agreed in advancing this hoax? Looks like. The peoples of the world are all their fools.

The article states that the velocity of the plane was judged, without evidence provided, to have been 590 mph, which experts say is impossible in low altitudes. It's suggesting that the morons were increasing the velocity because they needed it to convince the experts that the plane could penetrate the columns as drastically as the holes suggested.

The writer of the article may take the plane in the video to be real at the scene, not pasted in fakery. This cannot be correct, for it would require plane parts falling to the streets. Instead, the only thing falling to the street was a shower of building-skin materials...expected due to bombs placed in the walls. The shower of material is very visible in another video taken from the ground. The same writer claims that he can see both plane engines in the holes, though I don't recall reading that from others.

Bigfoot: Evolutionist's Last Hope

I've liked mysteries as much as you have, and we all want to crack a good mystery. My job on Middle-East news and now covering Trump keeps me guessing on what the truth might be for evolving situations. And, speaking of evolution, hoaxes, we Christians all understand that evolutionist scum need hoaxes to convince the masses that man evolved from apes. This is the starting point on any discussion about bigfoot (no capital letter warranted).

There's a reason as to why most of the earliest bigfoot sightings were faint, foggy, short-time on visibility, or long-distance on visibility. Go ahead and watch the most-advertised bigfoot videos, and you will repeatedly find that no one has a crisp-clear, up-close, fantastic shot of one, because it's always a man wearing a gorilla suit, and that becomes more obvious the clearer the shot, or the longer in time the shot. Just imagine a man in a suit as you watch one walking, and you will agree that it looks like a man walking in a suit. There is no reason as to why it couldn't be. And don't get fooled by photography tricks.

Sometimes, in a real situation out in the woods, a person will be alone with a camera. At times, he may be working outside his home; at other times he may be wandering through the wilderness. At times, the cameraman will be with her mother, or his daughter. At other times, we could expect a burley and courageous young man out with at least one other burley, courageous young man, and in such situations we might expect the men to holler at the bigfoot, or chase after it to get a better shot, yet, if the films / videos are fakes, we don't expect the fakers to do that, because they don't want us to think, hey, yeah, why doesn't anyone ever try to catch one?

It appears they the fakers y have opted to generally play it safe, pretending to get a fully-natural shot of the creature, first rehearsing the man walking along in the ape suit, and, when they feel ready, they film it. Perhaps they hope there's money to be made, but, to be sure, you have countless video producers online seeking to push the evolutionist storyline using the ever-growing number of bigfoot sightings. The hoax would have worked far better if there had been only a couple of dozen filmings. The sightings map I saw made me think that the reported sightings are now in the thousands. That's how you can know that this is a hoax, for the higher the number of sightings, the greater the chances that hunters will have seen one, and shot one. Surely, there's got to be one man with a rifle in the world who also wants to become famous as the one who finally caught a bigfoot, dead or injured. A hunter can shoot to injure only, in the leg for example.

The higher the number of sightings, the more it backfires on the evolutionists. Surely, with thousands of sightings, there's got to have been a case where two or more men had both a camera and rifles. They see the bigfoot nearby, then follow and shoot it, with the camera rolling. Where is that expectation? It will never be, because there is no bigfoot. It's the evolutionist's hoax. Need more be said? Well, the evolutionists got wind of this argument, and they provided a hunter, with a gun, and a bigfoot just 20 yards from him, looking him straight in the eye. Yup, here's the man's online, disgusting story:

It had eyelashes and "flat teeth" like our teeth, and it roared like a lion; that's what this disgusting liar says. He of course has an excuse as to why he couldn't shoot the creature. This is a close as the evolutionists can get to the scenario that we expect time and time again. There's no one more apt to having a bigfoot sighting, if they were real, than a hunter. Where's the hunter that actually shot a bigfoot? Nowhere. Nothing. The evolutionists have nothing.

This disgusting liar even says that fellow hunters should not fire at one of those creatures, because, "if you do, you will lose." Ha, that's just an attempt of the evolutionists to explain why no hunter has caught a bigfoot, because, we are to think, anyone who tried to shoot one got eaten up. Ha-ha, evolutionists are such sore sports, they are now using fakery to prove what the fossil record has denied them.

This disgusting man says that two bigfoot were chasing him, even while he was driving away, yet the other thousands of sightings do not jibe with that picture. No video I've ever seen has an aggressive bigfoot, which is not a wonder, since they are fakes. There's a click-bait industry growing on youtube in the bigfoot department. Before watching a video, check the like-to-dislike ratio; if the dislikes are even a third of the likes, the video probably isn't worth watching.

The fakers are learning to do close-ups now, because the lack of close-ups in a world filled with zoom cameras cries fakery all on its own. In the video below, a close-up frontal, wow. But, sorry, the video producer does a good job debunking this particular hoax.

To do close-ups, they have got to get rid of the gorilla face in gorilla suits, or, to put it another way, they need bona fide bigfoot costumes designed and tailored. You can start to see the problem here, as different hoaxers make different costumes, or give differing reports, they will need to announce several different species of bigfoot. They are making these arguments already, trying to sound as scientific / professional as possible, as is the tactic / habit of the disgusting evolutionist.

A costume tends to hang loose on the person wearing it. If they make the costume tight, we're going to see the human shape of the person under the suit. To get really good at this, they are going to have to alter the human shape with some method, then get a tight suit on that looks like the hair is attached to the skin. A loose gorilla suit doesn't look like the fur is attached to muscle, but people unaccustomed to seeing gorillas can't tell the difference between a real one and men in suits. Evolutionists cannot now perfect the bigfoot suit because we can compare it with the old photos, and they will not jibe, it's as simple as that. At the start of the below, there is a fairly-clear bigfoot suit. The face lacks realism, with insufficient detail. It looks like they have the head hair over the face to hide most of it. Whose bigfoot suit design will reign in the world of bigfoot hoaxes? What happens when there are too many suits all having different designs? Uh-oh. Will the evolutionists be able to control everyone who wants to create a bigfoot suit? Uh-oh.

Take a look here to see how they are enterprising with faked bigfoot sounds now:

How can it be that of all the new sightings, no one has a crisp close-up of a face? You know the answer. They have very-compelling speakers; don't believe them until the day that one is caught. In the video below, note how the disgusting speaker sounds to professionally scientific (capable of fooling your children), and then ask why he chooses to show a bigfoot picture (has very-human face) that's so grainy, as we expect from a hoax. Does this professional-sounding liar not have better photos to show? Apparently not. Why not? Why can't he see the fakery, being so well-studied, as he comes across? Because, he's part of the fakery. Evolutionists have a century-long record of conducting hoaxes with man-ape creatures. The more professional they sound, the more disgusting they are, teaching fantasies to our children as truth. Never respect them. Always denounce them. Always tell of the blatant facts they ignore. No bigfoot bones have ever been found, end of debate, right? Not for the imposters.

The only way to explain the abundance of sighting reports (without camera shots) is by the disgusting evolutionists, who have a program to produce such "witnesses" until the world believes, at which point they will teach it in the schools.

In the video below, the scenes are fairly clear, until nearly the 4-minute mark when a bigfoot appears. The view suddenly goes blurry when the bigfoot appears, an obvious hoax, therefore.

There's a video with a title: "Man Wearing Bigfoot Suit Killed on Montana Highway While Trying To Scare Drivers." The comments section: "Wouldn't ya know the first Bigfoot struck and killed by a driver WOULD turn out to be a guy in a ghillie suit." Translation: how come no real bigfoot has been killed or even hit crossing a road? Duh, the evolutionist is not a dope; he's a dangerous societal fiend, more than willing to lie. He's both the instigator and manager of lies.

Here's another bigfoot uniform (foggy scene, nothing new), or maybe just a computer animation:

The evolutionists can soon appeal to genetics to make them a bigfoot with ape genes coupled into a human birth. Would geneticists do this? They already have. They are hiding this from us. Somewhere, these creeps exist. For now, the only bogfoot truth is that, whenever someone spots a bigfoot who also has a camera, it's always a special bigfoot camera with a lousy quality. Until someone gets a shot of a bigfoot, face included, with a proper camera having the expected perfect quality, these other guys are all dishing out hoaxes.

I like the zoo analogy of Francis Chan late in this video:

This is good too:

In one of the Chan videos, he laments that he can't seem to get closer to God than he wants to. But this is incorrect. God is right there at all times. Sometimes He just doesn't make himself known with a sensation or sense-able act. There is a certain amount of faith that God wants us to grapple with, but this would cease to be faith if God were to respond to our every baby-cry. God has logically chosen not to give us a feel-good sensation whenever we ask for it, otherwise He becomes an addictive drug, and all we'll want to do is to remain on God's teets all day long. There's grown-up work to do, and Chan has chosen a good thing, to explain God-relationship to the poor, the rejected, the unknown. Maybe it's selfish for Chan to want to do more than he's already doing? Maybe he wants to become bigger in ministry (could be a dangerous pitfall). Maybe he wants to sit at the right hand of Jesus. That's not a bad thing.

Here's a video suggesting something seriously wrong with Chan. Before he gets into Chan, note the worst-ever, demonic false prophet I have ever yet seen, you will be shocked. What's worse is that his audience isn't exactly walking out of his church:

Francis Chan doesn't come up until about the 50th minute, where he goes on to say that he loves Mike Bickle, a real shocker for me. I'm shocked, it's just unbelievable. I was starting to like Chan. I met him a few weeks ago at youtube, and the latter keeps suggesting his videos, so I watched eight or nine. He seems sound and true to the word, yet here he is supporting IHOP garbage. It makes me want to warn that Chan turns out to be a money lover (may not realize how much yet) while disguising himself as not one. It's the new way to deceive believers by avoiding a prosperity-gospel approach, using another means to rob the churches.


For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God

If you are stuck with dial-up service, using the Opera browser can help.
It has an Opera Turbo program (free with the free browser) that speeds download time.
Go into Opera's Settings, then click on "Browser"; you'll find the on/off Turbo button in there.

Table of Contents

web site analytic