Previous Update....... Updates Index
if google refuses to load Updates-Index, copy and paste:


November 12 - 18, 2019

A New Whistle-Blower This Week in Nikki Haley
Impeachment Day One and Two
Big-Bang Indigestion

If you're waiting for Jesus to return, see Post-Tribulation Rapture
(if google refuses to load this link, copy and paste this:

If AP has it's story right, Rick Perry gave his buddies gas deals in Ukraine recently. Bad-bad. I'm sure that this is coming out Monday as juicy, anti-Trump news, because I'm sure they are going to try their best to attach this conflict-of-interest to Trump. Do you think Perry asked Trump whether it would be okay to get his buddies the 50-year contract? Sounds logical.
As Trump’s energy secretary, Perry has flown around the globe to push for U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas, which he calls “Freedom Gas.” He’s made multiple trips to Ukraine and other former Soviet-bloc nations, where shipments of American gas and drilling technology take on strategic importance as a potential alternative to continued dependence on imports from Russia.

Trump can't get much more in-your-face to Russia. He's doing it in an alternative way to how I saw the U.S. military wanting to do it, under Obama, with Iraqi oil and gas. It was the Obama government which forced the Russians out of their gas-to-Europe project through Ukraine territory. Apparently, the military people despising Trump now have no profits from American gas sold overseas. I don't like what Perry has done, if this is true. His friends got the contract due to asking for less money from Ukraine, but, maybe, there was American-tax$ compensation, somehow, rigged by Perry and/or Trump. Just a suggestion.

It's probably not coincidental that this story comes out Monday like the news juice for the week. Here we go again. The article makes it clear that it's been in the works for a long while, and that spies accumulated key events in the story, which may also mean that Intelligence has exaggerated the key claims, or even fabricated them outright under the same-old-same-old anonymous sources that do not exist. Yes, the article claims anonymous sources, what else? On the same day, AP came out with a story wherein Napolitano thinks Trump's guilty of crimes and ought to be impeached. Yup, we expect this sort of warfare from the left (i.e. from AP) just as the publicized impeachment process is about to get under way.

AP has another article Monday saying that Pentagon officials testified that Trump blocked Ukraine aid personally. As soon as the article failed to show evidence for this claim, I stopped reading. The trick is for the left to give appearances now that the whole country opposes Trump.

Good news: Nikki Haley came out to say that John Kelly tried to turn her against Trump. She added that Rex Tillerson was in on it with Kelly. I can't immediately see what motives she would have to lie about this, which amounts to tarnishing both men to boot. She apparently wants to unveil Kelly's disloyalty to his boss. It's one thing to disagree with a boss, but if Kelly was recruiting White-House enemies against the president, during the coup-attempt by others, it tends to put Kelly into a coup camp, does it not?

Last week, John Solomon appeared on Hannity to deliver a bombshell, with which Hannity did not do justice. On November 10, Watters' World had Solomon on for the same story, where Watters does a great job to bring the story home...but youtube has obliterated it, and it's only the 11th as I write. It's the smoking gun on Biden's crime. BCP recorded parts of it; I suggest you start at about the 7th minute for that:

Biden's crime was not the withholding of an American gift to Ukraine, but of using the gift as an exploitive instrument to obstruct justice on behalf of his son. Granted, the obstruction was not as per an American court, but the Democrats right now are making the point that a gift to Ukraine cannot be used by an American politician for personal benefits. The Democrats are making that point while trying to impeach Trump for it. Trump may or may not have withheld a gift, but in any case he was not asking for Ukraine money into his pocket, or the pocket of his family member. But Biden's affair involves big money into his son's pocket, and probably other, as-yet-unknown pockets, while seeking to keep that money flowing via the use of the exploitive instrument (the gift). Trump, on the other hand, just wanted to defend himself from his corrupt enemies.

So far as I can see on November 11, youtube has obliterated all of Watters' shows when they are about a day old. They are all 2 seconds long for days prior to the 11th. Youtube is going to bury all of the material about to come out against the deep state. There's no way that youtube can get away with this unscathed. Youtube will be guilty of siding and obstructing with high-level criminality.

November 11 is the day that America celebrates its military courage / sacrifices. Regrettably, there is no defence of America happening anywhere, nor has there been in all my lifetime. No one has attacked America. It's America which has been attacking others, wasting the blood of soldiers on corporate enterprises around the world, and here's the reason that I say it's regrettable: people who understand the conspiracies now unfolding have yet to lump their own military brass into that loathsome thing. The CIA now opposing Trump is not working around the world alone; it's working with military brass, or those who control that brass. They are NOT defending America, but only make that claim to justify thieving American tax dollars. What is it that patriots can't grasp about this? Your own military pillages you, waste's your blood, and gives you back the lame, Mr. America, but you're too blind by an American-glory figment of your imagination to see it? Okay, wait not much longer, and this will be exposed. At least, it seems to me that we are on track to its exposure. If you didn't understand by 9-11 that your military is a demonic enterprise, I don't hold out much hope for you in seeing properly. If you can't grasp that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon on 9-11, then you allow your own eyes to deceive you.

There are two kinds of military. The real one, and the idealistic one. The real one is the one that faked 9-11 and then entered the Middle East to exploit it. This is your enemy. It is up to the American people to wrestle the military establishment from these imposters, but it can't be done until it's recognized and well understood by the masses. The idealistic military is for use in defence, not globe trodding. George Bush said no nation building before he was elected, and then globe trodded like no one else before him. Imposter. God's commands for a nation are identical with His commands for us: love your neighbor nation; do not be violent; no not covet what is theirs; do not use soldiers, weapons, or the sale of weapons to accumulate / exploit wealth from other nations...and don't be so stupid as to boast publicly that your nation is the best, because that's a sure-fire way to become the least. Guaranteed.

You who boast about America are not free to snub your nose at God's command to be humble. If you don't know enough to be humble, you come across to me as a spiritual IDIOT. Worse, in fact, because a nation filled with people boasting about the primacy of their nation is DESTRUCTIVE to the nation. America has become the end-time Sodom, and the end-time Rome, the least of all nations. How one rates America at this time depends on what one values. If you value the military, then, yes, America is the greatest nation for having the greatest military. If you value money, then, yes, America is the greatest nation for having the most money. But don't you dare say, Christian, that God thinks America is the greatest nation, for He doesn't value those things. Get your Christian act together. If you can't be happy unless you're pushing America as a great thing, something's empty about you. Fill yourself with the Spirit of God. How? Seek and you'll find. I suppose that if you don't seek (e.g. cry out for) the Spirit, God doesn't think you're worthy to have Him. I see American Christians trying to get American Christians onto an American bandwagon. Excuse me?

Old man says: I'm a great man because I'm so rich. It's obscene. Who could love a man like that? So why would anyone boast on America's behalf just like that? Or, how can anyone boast on America's democratic system when it's a sham at this time due to corruption? Or, how can anyone boast on America's freedoms when freedoms have made devils and sinners rampant coast to coast? Like I said, the least of nations. The richest nation is the most immoral. EXPECTED. Be smart, accept the truth, share the truth. American glory is way in the past, the thing that Republicans ought to want to go back to. However, it doesn't require being backward to bring back the glory that once was. It is not backward to be Godly. Glory is in God. Anti-Christs have robbed the nation of Godly glory. Anti-Christs have wormed into every institution, especially the military, NASA, and technology, all the things Americans praise as glorious. I'm not saying that we should mock Americans for these situations, but that Americans ought to stop boasting about a country which moreover is in sobering, frightening debt. Sure, you're the richest nation, partly because you borrowed the most. It's time to fix these problems.

On Hannity on the 11th, Nikki Haley (just got a book out) said that she told her concerns about Kelly's and Tillerson's Trump-grudge to Trump and H.R. McMaster. She says also that the duo disagreed with Trump's embassy move to Jerusalem, wow, but why? She also said that "these guys" disagreed with getting out of the climate-change hoax, wow no kidding, and even the Iran deal. Thank you, Mrs. Haley, for this, much needed. She's even against the Bidens. Let's hope she's not merely acting out this part because she plans on coming out with more second-hand information against Trump's quid pro quo ordeal.

I think Lindsey Graham was in cahoots with John Kelly, tending to explain why Graham is not calling for the people that Nunes and others want to question. Lindsey probably wants Trump impeached, exactly why he's been acting as though he doesn't.

Condoleezza Rice came out to reveal that she's against Trump for the phone call rather than against the corruption that Trump wanted to expose through the phone call. This is why I support Trump on this issue, because it exposes Trump's enemies, the pro-deep-staters, when they ignore the corruption because they want it covered up...lest their crimes, or the crimes of their former superiors, in Eurasia become known. I don't see any other way to think of their animosity to Trump's phone call. Sure, it's self-interested, but so what? How can anyone rail against Trump for that small gnat while swallowing the camel before their eyes? God doesn't want people like this in His kingdom, those who ignore evil, because they do evil too.

A Fox-and-Friends host thinks that Kelly and Tillerson did not let Trump know of their differences on the three issues above stated by Haley. Tillerson and Kelly gave immediate statements to deny her claims, saying that they were loyal to Trump, which underscores why many Trump enemies at this time, with Trump riding high, wish to give the facade that they are loyal to him. This is what goes on. But as soon as Trump's popularity wanes, out will come the back-stabbers for the impeachment push. It explains why the star witnesses of the impeachment process have flip-flopped on Trump's guilt. It explains why the polls are portraying Trump as unpopular, and why leftist media continually ups the number of slander pieces as Trump gets more favorable ratings.

But what's Fox's problem for doing the same? Watters just criticized Drudge polls, but hey what about Fox polls? John Kelly was in cahoots with now-at-Fox Hope Hicks. There was evidence that Hicks is in cahoots with now-at-Fox Paul Ryan. This is heavy-handed stuff from Fox. I sense a desired cover-up by Murdoch. But why? Who in the war-hawk deep state is keeping him compromised? What's needed is only one or two Fox whistle-blowers on Ryan. Take the bullet for the greater cause.

Kelly even "warned" the president not to hire "yes men" lest it appear self-serving and thus feed the impeachment. In fact, Kelly said, "or you WILL be impeached." Scare tactic. It's clear as day as to how the shadow government is playing Trump, by worming into powerful positions on his team, and playing mind games with him. MASTERS OF INFILTRATION.

If you want to see fireworks, let Trump become a publicized truther. Those are the fireworks I strongly desire. Let there be war against the military demon that deceived America with 9-11. That is the starting point for fixing the nation, for going back to normalcy. Bush is the culprit that "changed America forever." Unless the people are exposed still festering in White-House rat holes: division and strife. But even Trump lovers uphold these rats. Bongino, Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh, you name it, they all see, or feign seeing, 9-11 as an Arab plot. I cannot believe that Giuliani doesn't know 9-11 to be an inside job. Giuliani, come clean. There is forgiveness and a trial-filled way (grows strong "muscles") forward for all who repent, but a solid, humiliating wall for the unrepentant. Here's Fox and Friends, unless youtube turns it into a 2-second video:

The video above cut out Nikki's appearance on the show, another piece of evidence that youtube and leftists are working together to provide Fox videos in order to cut them off and slice out parts while burying anyone's videos who's a pro-Trumper. Here Nikki's appearance on that show from a Fox video:

The debate ought to be whether a cabinet minister has the right to go further than disagreeing / objecting to a president's agenda. Can a cabinet minister protest by seeking to alter the agenda as secretly as possible? Should there be a law to stiffly punish such cabinet ministers to make lame the deep state? Great idea. If one takes a cabinet job, loyalty to the boss is the first requirement. They can disagree, but they cannot serve their own agenda, or that of another person or group...i.e. which makes lame the deep state. And if they get caught leaking for malicious purposes or spying for political foes, automatic punishment = the president or White House has no power to stop the punishment; it must be enforced for the sake of keeping White-House operations clean of infiltrations and infestations by shadow-government operatives. It's an easy fix only if there is punishment. Barr, you had best deliver.

Wow, Haley had a sit-down with Kelly and Tillerson objecting to Trump's freezing of aid to the Palestinians. Let me get this straight, that while Palestinians are open to terrorism and all-out war with Israel, Kelly and Tillerson wanted to go the way of the Europeans with a Palestinian state??? Is this the truth? How else do we explain that this duo used scare tactics seeking to convert Haley away from the president's pro-Israeli will?

Tillerson writes that his state department did its "best" to carry out the president's decisions, and thus incriminates himself by admitting that loyalty is necessary. Trump complained that Mattis did not do very well in the task Trump asked of him when he came on board as his Middle-East problem solver. But of course Mattis failed, because he wants to be in the Middle East forever, if necessary to fulfill the Bush-era agendas of the shadow government. This is the core reason that impeachment was a push from Trump's day one.

Having seen Haley on Fox and Friends, I'm convinced that she's sincerely on Trump's side. This is the sort of Republican whistle-blower needed. She snitched on Tillerson, telling that he gave the Palestinians half their aid in direct disobedience to Trump. Jail time needed automatically, because such insubordination needs to be deterred. She says that Trump was furious at Tillerson, and so who's to blame for Trump's angry side? The Brennans of the deep state would have us believe that demanding loyalty is a selfish aspect of Trump's governing methods, which can therefore be ignored. Imagine that. Deep state operatives cause the chaos in the White House, then pin it on Trump. Or, if Trump abides by deep-state desires, the deep state removes the chaos as his reward. RATS! It's transfixed / obsessed / entrenched exploitation-by-extortion of the White House, deserving of prison.

Haley took the position that Obama was pro-Russia in the Ukraine war. While she and I may differ on whether Russians in Ukraine had a right to separate -- seeing that the American deep state effected a coup in the Ukraine presidency while bringing in such infestations as Soros -- I'm all with her in accusing Obama as a pro-Russian. I think Obama was hoping for a Russian alliance with anti-Israeli Arabs in Syria. I suspect that the American-Uranium sale to Russians was firstly an Obama project to ultimately weaken the United States' ability to thwart a Russia-Arab alliance against Israel. Many saw Obama's Middle-East policy as an anti-Israeli one primarily. He may yet play a hand in bringing on the anti-Christ to prophetic fulfillment.

I'm not with Haley on her strong anti-Russia position, because I try to see things as Russia would with NATO-American intrusions into its spheres. I don't view NATO-Americanism as the angel of the world. I'm not with Russia in its partnership with Palestinians and Iranians, but that's due to Russia's defending itself against NATO-American intrusions into the Middle East. Can we at least understand Russia's fears? We might even ask whether it's impossible for the anti-Christ to arise if not for NATO-American malice. It seems to me to be the primary reason for the new cold war, but also for the flirtations with Armageddon scenarios coming to a head. We might see, as early as 2020, a Democrat president in the White House who forms a Middle-East pact with Russians, Iranians, Syrians and Palestinians for to invade Israel, under behind-the-scenes direction of an Obama group.

I really like this Haley story because it has the potential to unveil the war-hawk sham. But Mike Huckabee below is not helping because he says he respects Kelly. It's so Republican-correct, and he portrays the Kelly-Haley story as a mere family dispute. It goes much deeper. It goes as deep as unjustified coup-by-impeachment. Mr. Huckabee, you're missing the mark, try taking another shot.

I understand the problem of the military with it's long-range plans. A president comes in to cripple its long-range plans. Ouch. But, sorry, those are the lumps the military planners need to take, because they don't have a right to carry their own agenda in violation of the commander-in-chief. Obviously. But Kelly and Tillerson have come out swinging against Haley with a soft / couched mocking of her accusation.

Huckabee rails against the deep-state impeachment plot, but doesn't see Kelly as part of it:

As we saw, Kelly and Tillerson were trying to twist Haley's arm by claiming that lives will be lost with Trump's altering of their course. In fact, lives have been lost because the deep state creates murderous situations, not unlike terror acts, in order to get its military-agenda way. I claim that the military-based shadow government is a terror group, no exaggeration whatsoever.

One can tell by the comments in these videos that pro-Trumpers, not Kelly's friends, own Fox. It makes it harder for Fox to support the Kelly side. Things are therefore going well toward the exposure of the military demon. I'll celebrate when that happens. If Kelly is part of the impeachment push, he's worthy of a long jail sentence because he was feigning Trump's right-hand man. Huckabee, try another shot, only this time, aim.

Nikki's bombshell is in her book, which may explain why Condoleezza Rice came out at the same time to support the military side. The deep state does war through media messages. It tries to control the national mind as well as government bodies. It's been going on a long time. It accumulates to itself like-minded ones who then become the soldiers, the sergeants, the generals of media plots. Orchestration, stagings, false imagery...and regular news-juicy gifts to keep its partnership with media strong. Know your enemy. He's smaller than you think. He's the insane village idiot with a lot of stolen money in his bag. Here's a possible example of fake news from NBC, coming out as needed to help dethrone Trump:

Former national security adviser John Bolton derided President Donald Trump’s daughter and son-in-law during a private speech last week and suggested his former boss’ approach to U.S. policy on Turkey is motivated by personal or financial interests, several people who were present for the remarks told NBC News.

Did this speech even occur? Was it really a bona fide speech without lethal-to-Trump purposes? Or was it an orchestrated event made for public-release purposes only? Bolton's message comes out with Condoleezza's, and it too is on Trump's foreign-policy disagreements...with Bolton this time. It sure looks like the Bush circle here attacking Trump on Impeachment Week. It's not a wonder they are starting Impeachment Week on Wednesday, allowing two days of this orchestrated trashing of Trump first. Know the enemy, the made-to-leak rat. So, Bolton pretends like he's up-and-lawful not to violate Trump's will for speaking at the impeachment, but then gives a speech with his Trump-trashings sure to be leaked by his fellow rats. Uh-hum.

I believe God showed us that Morgan Stanley, with offices in a trade tower, was part of the secret technicalities in bringing down the Trade Center. The article above: "But [Bolton's] pointed comments, at a private gathering last Wednesday at Morgan Stanley’s global investment event in Miami..." How interesting. Wasn't Bolton an old Bushite? Yes, he was. What does Bolton know about 9-11 and its aftermath baby in the Middle-East?

So just when the deep state needs to make Trump appear self-interested in his Ukraine phone call, Bolton makes the nasty, vengeful statement that Trump was self-interested in his Middle-East agendas. One cannot stick a knife to Trump any better than that aside from using a real knife. And that may be a final alternative if impeachment and the 2020 election looks like a democrat failure. For those of you who know my opinions on my 17 squirrels, the 17 Intelligence agencies, and Mueller's 17 lawyers: "Bolton served as Trump’s national security adviser for 17 months." Hmm.

Bolton does make the point that Ivanka is a liberal flake "advisor" to the president, and I'll agree with that assessment in my own way. I don't like Ivanka for God's purposes on this earth. Bolton's trying to scare voters into thinking that Trump could replace the old Jew (Ginsburg, deserves zero respect) on the supreme court with another mad liberal just to make Ivanka happy. Not that I think Trump wouldn't do this after 2020, but that, for now, I'm taking this merely as Bolton's deeper knife stab.

While I would headline Haley's whistle-blowing as her praiseworthy defense of Trump, a nasty media has a headline, "Nikki Haley’s Damning Defense of Trump". It's all in how one spins it. In this article, uh-oh, we learn of Haley's opinion "that Trump should not be impeached 'for asking for a favor that didn’t happen." Uh-oh, isn't that the tricky, deep-state push to make Trump wish that the new Ukraine doesn't come out with old-Ukraine corruption? Looks like. Perhaps Nikki has been a mere victim of that trick.

The article argues nothing, that insubordination is helpful. Therefore, let lawlessness rule, because criminals may be right while law-abiding people may be wrong to obey laws. The left would turn the jackass upside down in order to make Trump appear in the wrong. That's why communism and dictatorships exist, because unfettered free speech is the ruin of a nation. Democrats today are a case in point. The reason unfettered free speech exists is because there are no men who can be trusted with a dictatorship. The reason that no good men ever rule dictatorships is that anyone aspiring to a dictatorship needs to win it by force of brutality. But if a democracy would appoint a four-year dictator, there could be hope. There needs to be a rule, however: the elected dictator must rule as promised to voters before the election, and the opposition party cannot badger / slander the president continuously via the excuse / facade of free speech.

If that sounds like democracy Assad-of-Syria style, it is, but only if the opposition would not honor the law to restrain itself from constantly attacking the leader. It forces the leader to force the opponents to quell their attacks, and so goes the civil war. If both parties agreed to abide by a peaceful acceptance of the other party's dictator, it could work. But the demons amongst us have created the liberal politicians, for they were the ones to devise slander tactics, for which they required ownership of media bosses. Isn't that exactly the outline of a brutal dictatorship? There's only one solution: sacrifice unfettered free speech on behalf of jailing those guilty of slander tactics. Free speech shall not be permitted to utilize slander tactics. There are ways to define and recognize slander tactics, like when CNN has 1,000 stories in a row all anti-president. Achem, this gleaning does not require advanced science.

As soon as George Bush proclaimed that his election to Office gave him political capital i.e. a dictatorship, that's when the Democrat canons were filled with bigger bombs. The election of Trump has exposed the problem child in America: the liberal. He is the mess, the confusion, the threat of civil war. He it is that must be jailed, or else. Take your pick, freedom lovers, a small sacrifice of free speech, or the destruction of the nation's integrity. Define "integrity" in this context. The frame, the walls and floors, the beams and their roof weight. If the roof can't hold the weight because rats are chewing out the integrity, the whole house collapses. Stop the mouths of the rats before it's too late.

You believe in freedom of speech for fear that a dictator will rob you of it, but it works the other way around: would-be dictators use it to come to power by destroying the enemy. There must be a solution beyond toleration of terrible speech. I'm sure that "terrible" comes from "tyrant." I am sure that there are now more people leaning to terrible than to decency precisely because media free speech has created the bigger group. I'm all for allowing sincere disagreement, but insincere disagreement -- slander tactics disguised as true feelings -- have got to be minimized. There has got to be a way to phase a set of free-speech rules that both parties must abide by while overseen by a bi-partisan referee (or panel) with the power to punish. The referee must be placed under the threat of punishment if he/she colludes with either party or its supporters. The mere hanging threat of punishment will work wonders to keep the players honest, IF punishments are handed out. Barr, ya hear? This is your moment. What will you do with it, squander or deliver?

Every game board has rules, but not American free speech in the game of real life. It's not a wonder that "dog-eat-dog" was coined. Republicans must be mad to emphasize corporations over workers in such an environment. If the majority rules, why don't workers have powers? How can it be that Republicans let worker votes go to fake-face Democrats? How can Republicans betray the workers to such humiliation and vanity? Bring the workers into Republican camps, stupids, by being kind to the poor, as God COMMANDED. You don't have a choice before God. He detests the rich and callous, and helps the poor in spite of them. You free-enterprise espousers are in love with the freedom that makes the devil mock God. Don't give the lion's share of tax breaks to corporations, stupids, but to low-income workers. Are you out of your mind, Trump, to be that unwise?

This week we here of the federal reserve pumping money into the markets. Why isn't it going to low-income workers? Why do "markets" get the free cash instead of the poor? How can we as Christians justify this? As money is pumped into the markets, up will go prices for the poor, and then like beggars they need to ask for raises, on-and-on this cycle goes, you shameless Republican establishment. Who's going to pay the interest on this new money "pumped" like a fat man's excrement into the markets? Did the poor give you permission to force them to pay interest on your trillions borrowed? Greedy dragons. Western Babylon will pay the Armageddon price tag for its obscene trade. The tall towers will fall from the sky by a Terror Invasion. The president who owns such towers and watches over to protect the financial glory of the American kingdom is a fool. Trump.

It's not the economy, stupid, but the workers with little hope of enjoying life month after month, year after year; the silent torment goes on while Trump boasts of great stock-market numbers. It's the stock market that creates the weary and hopeless; how in our right minds do we see God behind the stock market? There's only one and easy solution to the historical poverty problem: legislate caps on pricing by manufacturers, distributors and retailers. No one is allowed to ask too much for a product. A manufacturer can't sell a truckload of a $10 product for more than $13 (30% markup). A distributor cannot sell a truckload of a $13 item for more than about $15 (12% markup). A retailer stocking a $15 item can't sell it for more than about $24 (60% markup). A retailer not stocking it can't sell it for more than a 20% markup. Suddenly, the poor have purchasing power, the ability to buy a small home in their 20s, and decent vacations...while the rich don't get obscenely rich. PERFECT (aside from those who don't always follow these rules).

I'd be willing to bet that anyone who ran on that platform would get elected because there are more poor than rich voters. Out of the non-voter ranks will the poor suddenly come. It'll be a landslide. The problem, however, is similar to a Mexican one where, if a good man runs for the presidency, he gets shot by the cartels. Same in the United States, except that the good guy gets machine-gunned down by the free-speech press. The free press is your enemy, poor of the world. It's the mouth piece of the rich (ask Lou Dobbs) that allows the devils to play mind games with you. It makes you think that a good economy is when corporations are getting richer. For this there will be a PAY DAY, and you don't want to be enjoying a day at Trump Tower at that time. On that day, Trump will be stuck in the eye of a needle.

Democrats get most of the poorer voters, but they alone are not enough to get the party automatic power because Democrats don't do much for them when elected. The poor-voter / worker-voter movement of labor / socialist parties is like a shot to their own foot if they don't deliver. Trump has gotten some unemployed people back to work, but only as the exhaust of spent tax gifts rising from the tall chimneys of big factories. Trump's not going to get many worker votes like that. If he wants a landslide, get the workers the lion's share of tax cuts, and make corporations work for the tax-cut money spent by the workers rather than vice-versa. Why in chimney-smoke hell should the rich get the free money instead of the workers? It makes sense only to a callous rich man. I could better the corporate economy twice as good as Trump by giving corporations twice the tax breaks; it wouldn't make me Wonderman, just twice as callous as Trump. It did enter the heads of Republicans to give the lion's share of cuts to workers, but they rejected it. GUILTY.

If you want to follow the impeachment, step by step, youtube isn't able to cancel Bongino's shows as it does Fox shows. Bongino has new-daily details and a light-hearted but passionate presentation:

There's a good piece in roughly the 26th minute where Vindman tries to supersede Trump's authority, or even make Trump look irrelevant, with a "building code" for foreign policy. That is, according to a pro-Trump writer, Vindman, the chief for Trump's Ukraine strategy, begs his listeners to consider policies followed by the chiefs of the Security department as higher than Trump's policies. I totally get it that they dislike Trump waltzing into "their" domain to upset their established codes of conduct, or codes of operational guidelines, but whether or not they have the better policy is not their decision to make. It's just the way it is, if they can't get Trump to join their policies, that Trump has the upper hand in setting new policy. It's just the way it is, babies, and, besides, Mr. Vindman, you're blind to the Biden scandals, meaning you don't deserve to be numero uno in Ukraine. Your entire testimony has been devalued to zero by your being blind to Biden. It's just the way it is, baby.

The deep state would have us believe that Trump is not permitted to ask his appointees whether they will be loyal to him. What does that tell us? The obvious. If a president can't secure for himself a team player of like mind, then he's got a 50-50 chance of wasting his choice, and wasting the peoples' time / business too. So, Mr. Trump, do yourself a favor and, before you appoint or nominate someone else, make sure he's/she's loyal to the agenda you plan to give him/her. It's a no-brainer, but you have failed miserably in this regard. You've been listening to the moles who would destroy you if you don't carry their burden, the moles who would make a mule out of you one way or another.

I also understand that, if there is a policy in place in a certain country, for a distinct, long-range plan already in the works for years or even decades, it could be a sorry thing for a new president to come along and ruin the entirety. It underscores the importance of having in place honest, professional people doing a good thing. But if any of those things are missing, that's the up-side on a new president coming along, to root out any corruption that may exist from the previous president. There is always the chance that the new president seeks to set up his own corruption scheme beneficial to himself and his friends, but that's the way it is, the risk the people take...underscoring why it's not been good to elect gold- and casino-loving Trump. Is this the best the Republicans have who is pro-Israel, anti-globalist, and Christian-supportive?

Trump got the Seat because a Bible-based presidential candidate would be machine-gunned down by the press while being abandoned by secular voters. Trump was able to get plenty of secular voters. Therefore, because America did this, God is pained. In my view of Him, He always pays back what the due is, and it won't be pretty for the Trump team.

I think the impeachment green light for Wednesday of this week was timed deliberately to coincide with the release of the Horowitz report so that leftist media have an excuse to ignore the latter. But there are sufficient days before the report comes out to blow impeachment integrity to smithereens, unless there is an ace up the sleeve, an as-yet unseen witness with teeth.

Below is Bill Barr for his speech on the importance of religious morals in society which he gave recently. I am wondering why he's doing this just before the Horowitz report. Is he seeking to appease Christians before he fails to make the arrests they expect? Is he asking us, between his lines, to be forgiving toward Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein? Whatever the answer, his speech is good and in places excellent for the purposes of healing the nation. The moral order within good people can make for the viable society apart from government, in-our-faces controls. Having listened as far as to the 19th minute as I write this, he sounds like a typical, anti-liberal Christian:

Will Barr allow the killers of Epstein to remain free as cardinals allow pedophilic priests to remain free? Someone at Fox (on Tucker Carlson Nov. 14) this week said that Barr has not had Epstein's murder investigated, nor is Barr wanting to comment on it to a Fox reporter.

Forgiveness is for those who repent, but deep-state operatives will not repent because it involves admission of crimes. If Barr really cares about the destructiveness of liberals, now's the time to expose their leaders and weaken them ever-so-sorrily. I want to see action, not heavy-gravity words alone. Only action can convince us that Barr's sincere with his words.

Impeachment Day

Nunes did a good job introducing the pro-Trump side of this spectacle. Schiff spoke before Nunes only to say that Trump ABUSED HIS POWERs for asking Ukraine to uncover Obama-team corruption. What a dope Schiff is to place himself at the center of this effort. Surely, he's doing it because others (the guilty, of course) are compelling him to try try try no matter how it ruins his reputation. Who are these others, we would like to know.

Hillary is watching because she wants to become the president by default, more or less, if Trump can be removed.

Right away, the Republicans entered into the record that Schiff is prohibiting the questioning of the whistle-blower, and the best Schiff could do to justify the prohibition is for the sake of protecting the blower's identity. Any normal person can see that this is a lame excuse, and that Schiff knows he's guilty in collusion with the whistle-blower. I don't think Trump can be removed without questioning of the whistle-blower eventually, and that could land Schiff in prison...because this Trump-attack is no small matter that Barr is watching closely. I doubt very much that Schiff is Barr's friend. Barr wants to know the predicate of this new Trump-attack, and it's definitely in a Schiff effort in concert with the whistle-blower and other Intelligence operatives. All of them are in danger in this impeachment, so, don't leave God's hand out of this, because anything can happen.

Next, George Kent speaks a long-winded speak on his passions to help Ukraine overcome the Russians. In this cry-baby backdrop which may or may not be justified, he drops the bomb against Trump, saying he doesn't believe that the president, in such a sensitive situation (as there may or may not have been at the moment), should enter the stage to score political points using the Ukraine government. He comments as best he can on why Trump's request was dangerous / harmful to the sensitive situation, yet Kent doesn't spend time telling that the Ukraine itself didn't mind one iota to give the United States the corruption information Trump was asking for. Ukraine didn't mind giving it up even before Trump asked for it. Therefore, if Ukraine wanted to give up the information, how does that amount to a withholding of weapons money? Even if Trump did have in mind to use the money as compulsion for the corruption information, there was no stall to speak of on the money. That's why this is a cry-baby scene on Kent's part.

Kent is John Kerry's man, and this sham process could land Kerry in prison, if Barr's up to proper justice. Kent is clearly doing his best to defend self. Kent's actually defending his pals involved in Ukraine corruption, and this entire affair started for the purpose of keeping the real goods from spilling forth. It's therefore a dangerous process because it's far-more likely now that all the facts WILL come to light. It's precisely due to this sham that Republicans want to know the real facts.

Kent then accuses Giuliani of "smearing" Poroshenko, the original pro-west Ukraine president. Kent really has no right to make this charge until the facts are known about Poroshenko. In other words, making the accusation against Giuliani only fuels Giuliani and others to successfully make their case. You see, this process is a defensive move by the Obama team; it's not really an offensive, because, for one, every accusation they speak puts them on the defensive. Secondly, it's not an offensive because such a thing requires bullets and bombs, but Schiff and the others don't have any. Enjoy.

After Kent finally ends (whew), Bill Taylor comes on making a colorful display of himself hoping to make the listener believe that he's wholly impartial and dedicated to the people. Ya, I've heard that before. It's what one says when he intends to be partial. Akin to Kent, Taylor starts off by telling of Russia's threat to Ukraine. He's fishing for sympathy. He goes on and on vilifying the Russians for killing Ukrainians, as though this is relevant to Trump's withholding weaponry money. It's like splashing perfume on their skunk hoping it will save the day. Good luck.

Taylor then paints a picture in which he and others were excited with Zelensky's new government, but that Trump didn't seem to be. I know where he's going with this before he speaks, because it was leaked already. He's wants to say that Giuliani was spoiling the excitement (i.e. or the US-Ukraine relationship) with his seeking to help Trump on Ukraine matters. But, Taylor, Zelensky was in favor of helping Giuliani. The latter only made Zelensky more excited about meeting Trump and having a good relationship with the United States. Wow, Taylor, it's like you roll out a cannon, and all it does is spray pie into your face. What a mess.

Taylor goes on to say that he felt indication (regrettably) of Trump's wanting to assure that Zelensky had the will to do investigations on corruption, and of course Taylor was upset that Trump may have wanted investigations on Biden or, for example, as per the Politico piece of January, 2017, which claimed that there was conspiratorial Ukraine collusion with the Hillary campaign. Wow, Taylor, weren't you at all upset about that corruption? Wasn't that a spoiler threat to US-Zelensky relations??? Uh, but you're instead upset with Trump for wanting to know the corruption??? Taylor, you're doing the mobster mash, dancing like a puppet. What mobster group are you dancing for?

Yes, the conspiracy between the Ukraine under Zelensky's predecessor and the Hillary campaign was an absolute spoiler situation between Trump and Zelensky, for Trump was not wanting to do business with Zelensky if he was just another one of the foes who teamed up with Hillary. Doesn't Taylor want to know about that spoiler situation? No. Instead, Taylor wants to paint Trump and his lawyer as the spoilers while wholly ignoring the flip side of the coin. Why should Trump have been excited about Zelensky until the U.S. president first got wind of his position on Hillary's Trump-attack? Lucky for Trump, Zelensky was on his side. Lucky for Trump, he asked for the corruption information, which has provided this bonanza, this Schiff circus. It's a bonanza for Trump, surely. It's going to bring out Obamaite corruption...unless Trump cowers and folds his hand.

Taylor has the obvious problem, though I don't think he's inclined to give it the light it deserves, that the hold of the U.S. money was during a presidential transition, in which case it would be Trump's duty to feel-out / check-out the new president to see whether he would use the money toward the purposes for which it was given. Taylor doesn't want to hear that, or even say it. He only wishes to give the impression that Trump was withholding for personal, election-related gain. One can tell by the air about him in his voice. He's coming across like da boss of the Ukraine policy, way above Trump's head, because he cares more than Trump does. But this is a sham self-portrayal. Taylor's yet to be questioned.

Taylor said that one of Zelensky's associates told him (Taylor) that Zelensky didn't want to be used to advance anyone's election campaign. It sounds like it's referring to Trump, and so someone needs to ask Zelensky if he did in fact say that, because the Taylor side can't be trusted not to fabricate any piece of evidence. The way that Taylor sounds at this point would suggest that he would go ballistic concerning Hillary's interference using Ukraine, but, no, Taylor isn't bothered by that at all. He's at the mic solely to tarnish Trump. There's no escaping it, that if all they do is attack Trump but not the Democrats who are guilty of far worse, they are useless tools for Schiff. They will get the ears only of Democrats, making the entire process useless...except that Republicans can now weigh in on what really matters.

My C-SPAN feed just jumped way ahead. I don't know what it missed. The questioning of Taylor is in session with Democrat Goldman questioning. This is at a key moment that the Democrats want aired, and so the missing feed may be deliberate to hide certain questions by Republicans. Taylor tells Goldman that, when talking to Sondland (EU ambassador), Sondland said, no quid pro quo by Trump. But then suddenly the story changes to the exact opposite, as if someone had a chat with Sondland, and coerced him to give the opposite order to frame Trump. If I were a judge, I would take the initial claim, no quid pro quo, and deny Sondland his fixer-upper alteration to the opposite side of the impeachment universe.

So, Taylor looks like he's depending on Sondland to carry the torch for the Trump-attack side, which can explain why Taylor's making Sondland look like some sort of Ukraine-issue chieftain. He's not. Sondland's word is already suspect due to his change of mind, but, even worse for the Schiffites, Sondland's word on quid pro quo isn't as good as that of the Ukrainians themselves. If Taylor and his bunch had the latter, they wouldn't be using Sondland here. Taylor can be gleaned as part of the initial whistle-blower scheme, don't be fooled because it included fabrications. Everything Taylor says is perfectly conducive to Democrat wishes. The bottom Taylor line: we need to go to Sondland's testimony, and questions to him from Republicans.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that Intelligence was watching Trump very closely to see what he would do to get dirt from the Ukraine. And here we are. It seems to me that Taylor's job was to create written records (of his own writings) showing feigned concern that Trump was abusing his Office to get dirt on the deep state. We should expect such written records, where there is a frame-job in the works, from more than one man i.e. Taylor. Why not also Kurt Volker?

As soon as Giuliani was discovered in the fray, Intelligence cooked up this orchestrated, vengeful reaction. There is a small chance that Giuliani was a part of this Trump-attack, and I would be open to it if he doesn't go forward fighting for Trump. If he simply bows out, I might go back to my original view of him as a mole in Trump's affairs. In this picture, it was Giuliani's job to get involved in the Ukraine by Trump's nod, and to set things up for a backlash on Trump by others. If that's the truth, then Giuliani' is one heck of an actor, because he sounded sincere in his support for Trump while attacking Biden.

Lou Dobbs has the diGenova's on; their loose partnership with Giuliani is in the 3rd minute. What value could the diGenova's inadvertently have been to the deep state? How can it be rational in any way for Giuliani to have gotten the diGenova's involved for a sinister reason, for example, to complicate Trump's drive with what looks Fox-y political? To my surprise, Giuliani appears to be loyal to Trump, and yet I'm hearing from a leftist media that Trump's thinking of throwing him under the bus. Just when we're made to feel that our side has the goods, out the window they fly away. Coincidence, or are we being played continuously? If I'm hearing the couple right, they say that Soros is behind Schiff. It certainly makes sense.

If it was Giuliani alone requesting investigations on Biden and Clinton, Democrats would poo-poo it just the same. The ultimate kicker is that Trump's not doing wrong even if he himself makes the corruption-information request, because he's entitled to defend himself from his political enemies and to catch them in crimes. This is why the Democrats and Intelligence need to insert the element of withholding the aid in return for the information, and to base their entire impeachment on that thing. But the Ukrainians now in power aren't being agreeable to their story.

The other problem is that they all look like they could care less for the corruption that gave Trump a dismal first three years and counting. That is, they all look like they could care less for Americans engaged in a real, unexaggerated coup attempt. Taylor's like a cop writing Trump a speeding ticket but ignoring the theft of cars by Hillary.

With Goldman still questioning Taylor, they come to the Trump-Zelensky phone call. Zelensky gives Trump a thank you for military assistance, and Trump takes that opportunity (at the very time) to ask the favor for corruption information. It's no horrible thing at all. Goldman wants to frame this as coercing Zelensky -- not giving him any choice -- to give up the information, and this is supposedly an over-the-line crime of extortion or bribery, as Intelligence wants to frame it. Laughable. What's wrong with taking the opportunity to ask a favor just as you're discussing a big gift to someone? "After all, Mr. Zelensky, we are giving you this big gift, could you do us a small favor in return."

"Why absolutely, Mr. Trump, no trouble at all."

Trump wasn't asking for money in his pocket from Zelensky. That would make it a crime. Instead, he's asking the Ukraine to give what they can to help nab the Obamaites guilty of crimes. Yes, that's beneficial to Trump, but it's also the right thing to do.

Put it this way, that if Zelensky refused to give the information, I, if I were the president, would not give the aid. I would then consider Zelensky as a corrupt actor, and I would not give the aid. If not mistaken, Trump has already argued in just that way. We can now see why Taylor included, in his testimony, that Zelensky did NOT want to help Trump's re-election campaign, so that this phone call looks like extorting information from him. I would guess, therefore, that Taylor's source for this bit of information on Zelensky's feelings was fabricated.

Next, Goldman questions Kent, with the first finding being that Kent is a typical deep-stater denying Ukraine's interference to support Hillary Clinton. This is so easy to realize. Kent also denies the Guccifer affair as Trump sees it, you see, and even denies the guilt of Joe Biden. This is the same Kent who earlier complained, on an official basis, about Hunter Biden partaking with an outcast company (Burisma). So, treat Kent as the Intelligence puppet, clear as day. He's not going to convert anyone; he'll be respected only by Democrat shmucks who've already sold their souls to the devil, who gladly embrace a frame job of a Republican president no matter how criminal it is. Yes, this is a criminal process carefully crafted to stay within the laws so far as any public visibilities are concerned. It's a seditious coup based on some pre-determined concoctions and some last-minute arm-twisting of characters to change their stories.

It's not enough for deep staters to make false claims; they also make false scenarios so that the false claims appear true. If you're planning to falsely accuse someone of robbing a bank that was never robbed, it's much better and necessary that you also provide false evidence that the bank was robbed. In this impeachment, it's less complicated than providing that a bank was robbed that never was. All they needed to do was to electronically send some statements from officials like Taylor that hinted at a quid pro quo. They sent those statements before they broke the story, of course. They made Taylor talk on an issue that he wasn't supposed to know about yet because it had not yet made the news. Yet, the things they made him say lend evidence to their Trump-attack later in their news leaks. It's child's play to frame someone in this way, all the more reason to harshly jail leakers, for leaks are used exactly for starting attack scenarios like this. Create the scenario, then leak the story, then bring out the staged evidence. Easy as pie, no great intelligence needed by Intelligence.

Who was it that compelled Trump to ask what he asked???? Was it his own idea, or did one of his secret enemies coach him? Was it a set-up?

It turns out that the C-SPAN feed above cut out Jim Jordan demanding from Schiff about his relationship with the whistle-blower, and here Schiff told the world that he doesn't know who the whistle-blower is. That's new and impeachable if he's lying. If we now go forward in that light, the only person who's "legitimately" pushing the whistle-blower is Atkinson, the inspector general of Intelligence. The gravity is on his shoulders to provide justification for his de-facto alliance with the whistle-blower.

Here's the days hearings after Goldman is done, starting with Nunes' comments and questions:

Nunes first makes Taylor state under oath that he had not known about any actions taken by Chalupa on behalf of the Hillary campaign, at the time of his answering questions at the Schiff Den. I don't believe Taylor. Every star witness of Intelligence acts as though these pro-Hillary matters are of zero concern. Even Mueller, laughable, after 22 months of investigations, acted as though he knew nothing of Fusion. Taylor then says he was ignorant of the words and actions of some Ukrainian officials who spoke against Trump during the 2016 elections. He's thus on record. The large number of things that Taylor claims to have been ignorant of begin to erode his credibility. I think that most of these things had hit the news by the time of the Schiff Den meetings; if so, how does a full-blown ambassador of the region under concern not hear of them? How does he talk with his buddies and associates, none of whom ever bring up those topics? It's a little unbelievable, wouldn't you say? Without jail time to them, men like this come to congress lying through their teeth for political warfare...real, dogged conspiracies going unpunished.

The facts: Trump wanted dirt on his political enemies, and asked the new Ukraine president for the dirt because Trump knew that Ukraine was willing already, from previous months, to hand it over to the United States. We can't say that Trump is bad for asking for dirt, because he didn't make the dirt. It's not cheap of Trump to ask for dirt on his political opponents, and moreover those who ignore Hillary's illegal request for dirt on Trump are the very ones trying to portray Trump as cheap for asking dirt on Obamaites. But the two dirts are not the same. The Hillary dirt was to usurp a presidential candidate and then a president; the dirt Trump wanted was to have Hillary's crimes exposed, a good thing. Shame on Taylor and the others, great shame. As the Democrat side will go forward denying Hillary's crime's, there's only one thing to do: go forward to expose them.

Don't give up on us now, Mr. Trump. Bring out Giuliani's material on the Bidens, and expand upon it with Zelensky's input.

The United States under a Sessions leadership, at Top Cop Hall, rejected the Ukrainian assistance against Hillary's people, and Trump eventually decided he had best take up that offer for his own good, but in the meantime it was the right thing to do for the entire world. The facts don't end there; they include a cover-up of the dirt by Democrat and Intelligence machinery. You can't let them get away with it, because they'll continue to do it.

Jim Jordan puts Taylor in his place, showing his hypocrisy:

Jordan points out that Taylor met with Zelensky the day after Trump's phone call. Coincidence, or did Intelligence arrange it? Taylor wanted to know what was said on the call, or Zelensky's mindset, didn't he? There were so many rats on that call any one of which could alert Intelligence. Right? Surely. So the CIA calls Taylor to go-see, and they set up the whistle-blower scheme to down Trump.

[Trump-Twitter page for 10:39 pm on impeachment day one: "After the call - Ambassador Taylor met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky the VERY NEXT DAY!..." Surprise-surprise.]

According to Taylor, Zelensky did not tell Taylor, the day after the call, that Trump withheld aid for information. Yet, someone should ask Taylor what he went there to talk about until he tells as much as he will, because Zelensky can later add things said by Taylor that the latter isn't likely willing to admit before this impeachment charade.

Jordan says that Volker and Sondland were with Taylor (the day after the call) in the meeting with Zelensky. It looks like a crisis team had gathered to begin spoiling Trump's drive for corruption exposure. But why was Sondland there too? Hmm. Did they ask for this meeting after the phone call? That may have looked suspicious to Zelensky, as though they were listening in on the call, or tipped off about it. It wouldn't have given Zelensky much time for the meeting if they asked for it after the call the day before. It might be, therefore, that they had arranged for the meeting before the call, but that they (Taylor and Volker, at least) knew that the call was scheduled on or about the 25th. Depending on how the call went (what Trump ended up saying), their job at Zelensky's office was to effect (manipulate) a way forward favorable to their plan.

About a month later, says Jordan, a second meeting between Taylor and Zelensky sees the presence of John Bolton this time. The crisis team has now come to the steps of Pompeo, and boy do I wonder how Pompeo really felt about this alarm signal that Bolton was sure to sound off. Why was Bolton, a Republican, so ticked off about the exposing of Democrat corruption in the Ukraine? It really is a key question. Surely, the answer to this question is a door to understanding war-hawk corruption in the Middle East. Mueller is suspect in that corruption. That's why they placed Mueller in charge of ruining Trump, right? Yes, and if Rosenstein elected Mueller to do the dirty work, doesn't it hint that Rosenstein has been involved with the corruption? We therefore spread this same species of dirt on the faces of other, as-yet unknown Republicans to which Jeff Sessions did the mobster mash. It's a big, frightening hall that we would enter when walking through this door. It has the military killing machine firmly on its stage.

Jordan speaks on a 55-day freeze on Ukraine aid starting July 18, and Taylor says he first heard about it on that though Intelligence didn't waste a minute to inform him (if he didn't already know about it privily). July 18 was a week before the phone call. Who caused Trump to make the call just one week after the freeze? Who caused Trump to make the freeze? Was he being set up on both counts?

[Trump Twitter three minutes before quote above: "Jim_Jordan: Aid was delayed by just 55 days. During that time, we verified that President Zelensky was the real deal." This way of phrasing it gives the best impression, which could be partly true: Trump was for (or even responsible for) the aid freeze, for the purpose of first proving Zelensky's loyalty to fighting corruption. There's no impeachable offense by phrasing things in this way. But even if the tweet was phrased in the worst-possible way, that he froze the aid until he knew that Zelensky would help justify him against wrongful attacks from the Ukraine, it's still not impeachable. Nikki Haley said this week that she wasn't very happy with Trump for using a foreign nation to incriminate Americans, but, Nikki, are you coming down with the Taylor disease? If you're not happy about it, then Trump is doing the right thing by exposing Hillary's camp because it grossly did what you just said you oppose. No matter how anyone accuses Trump in this scheme, it's justified because he was wanting to expose the very same thing on Hillary's shoulders. That's not to say that both Trump and Hillary are guilty of the same thing, but that Trump has the right to ask a foreign nation to intervene on American guilt whereas Hillary's camp did not have that right...because it was engaged in criminal malice. Trump's request of a foreign nation may have had vengeance at the root (involves malice), and it no-doubt had a political score in mind, but neither are criminal. Plus, Trump had previously shown, for years, more than too-much restraint in targeting the Democrats on multiple fronts. He had more than a right (a responsibility) by this point in the game to say: enough is enough, where's the club, it's time for some corrective bashing.]

Taylor admits that Zelensky didn't know about the freeze until late August, but at first glance I'm finding this hard to believe. I'd expect Intelligence and Taylor to have notified him about the freeze in order to turn him against Trump with the charge that Trump's playing politics with Ukraine's money. An alternative view with explanation for the omission is that there was no aid delay aside from the deep state's concocting it at some time between the phone call and the outing of the whistle-blower. As yet, I haven't heard details on this freeze. Who called for it? If not Trump, then I suppose that the deep state could have created it.

The third-to-fourth minute of Jordan's video gets comical at the end of the fourth, and Jordan thereafter races through a point making the "star witness" look like a dope for trusting Sondland. The latter's "amended" (i.e. altered) testimony is at issue here. Taylor wants to make Jordan's point look like light-hearted comedy, but Jordan is bang-on in making it. Jordan quotes Sondland: "Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told ambassador Taylor that I [Sondland] told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1st..." Yikes, what's that? Jordan races through this without having the time to explain it.

If I understand this right, the above is Sondland's statement to explain why he didn't include something in his initial conversation with Taylor, when he told him there was no quid pro quo. In other words, Sondland later claimed that he had forgotten something but that Morrison remembered it on his behalf, i.e. remembered the thing that Sondland spoke to Zelensky's people. Sondland squarely puts this forgot-remember scenario on Taylor's shoulders by saying, "Ambassador Taylor recalls." That is, Sondland doesn't want to be responsible for this scenario, but makes Taylor own though Taylor twisted his arm to make the statement.

Let's put it this way: Taylor claims that Sondland told the forgotten thing to Morrison, and that Taylor knew of it because Morrison then told Taylor, and finally Sondland: oh, yeah, now I remember saying that to Zelensky, couldn't have done it without you, Taylor. I'd say that this forgotten thing was "remembered" just after Sondland's original statement hit the news like a duck shot out of the sky. Perhaps the schemers thought that Taylor's claims in the original article would suffice with the public even with Sondland stating his opinion of no quid pro quo on Trump's part. I'd say that Sondland decided to play corruption ball with Taylor and Morrison, if not from the start, then later on.

Schiff really hated Jordan's argumentation.

Once we go to John Ratcliffe's questioning of Taylor, the latter can't look any worse because Ratcliffe reveals Zelensky publicly denying knowledge of an aid delay IN OCTOBER, after the delay was lifted, and at other times, multiple times, the Ukraine president said the same thing, over and over. The nerve of Taylor not to mention this himself seeing that it's central to Trump's defense. Shame-shame Taylor, you backward-ass of a Democrat stooge. You neglected to provide Trump's defense that you knew about. That's obstruction of justice. You knew that Democrats were using you to make the quid-pro-quo case, but you didn't mention to the United States, this week, the profundity of Zelensky's profuse denials of the criminal case you are hoping to make. You dreg, you pathetic excuse for an ambassador. You're one of the conspirators just because Trump won't abide with all of the pre-established Ukraine policy. Look at the point to which you have arrived this week to obstruct both your president and the president of Ukraine. How are you in any shape an ambassador??? You're a deep-state waterboy, and that is all.

We can guess exactly what Taylor and the Schiffites will say, that, aside from Zelensky's claims as mentioned by Ratcliffe, Trump still tried to furnish a quid-pro-quo situation for himself, and that he did go through with a request using an implied withholding of aid in order to secure the request. BUT it's mute, because Zelensky INSISTS REPEATEDLY, like one hollering from the rooftops, that he did not suffer any arm-twisting. There was no extortion, therefore, not even an uncomely act, so far as Zelensky is concerned. The only "crime" is that Trump was after what Taylor doesn't want him to get.

Taylor can hypothesize that Zelensky may be feigning his good treatment from Trump, but such a thing is not permissible in this hearing. Instead, Taylor must take Zelensky at face value. There's nothing more to say until Zelensky changes his tune. Don't be surprised if Taylor's side comes out soon with "evidence" that Zelensky was overheard complaining of how badly Trump extorted him. Really, that's typical of how the deep state amends the storyline if needed.

With the plot clearly not working yet, Taylor added the following, seen at the near-start of Thursday's Fox and Friends, which makes Sondland look like he's participating in fabricated events expressly for this impeachment hearing. Taylor says with a straight that this Sondland news came to him just last manure if ever we saw it:

As you can see, Taylor speaks with alarm, and enters into the records that, according to an unnamed Taylor associate (why did he go unnamed?), Sondland called Trump on the 26th of July (the day after the Zelensky phone call), in which Sondland shares with Trump that Zelensky was ready to move forward i.e. Taylor makes it sound as though Trump is guilty of quid pro quo because Zelensky accepted the Trump request with action. In part, this new entry looks like a CIA scare tactic, that if Zelensky delivers the corruption information so that Trump's people release it to the public, Trump will be impeached with more certainty. Release the war papers against these paper tigers, Mr. Trump. It looks like Taylor's associate who overheard the call was from Intelligence equipment.

Why didn't Taylor's associate come out earlier with this Trump-Sondland phone call? It sounds as though Sondland was already in Ukraine on the 26th, and that he had ready/speedy access to Zelensky's workplace. Is that credible? Does this speedy meeting with Zelensky make this story suspicious? Does anyone in their right mind think that Trump would be so reckless-to-self as to offend Zelensky by sending ambassadors to his office, the very day after the call, to check out his honesty, as if Trump thought Zelensky to be too much of dope to realize why the Americans are visiting him on that day? Well, if Trump didn't send them, why were they there? Did Sondland know from others that Trump was scheduled to call Zelensky on the 25th? Is that why Sondland arranged to be in Ukraine on the 26th?

The Taylor gang may have set up that meeting before the 25th for to give Zelensky the impression that Trump was checking up on him, to thus spoil the Trump-Zelensky relationship enough for the Ukraine to renege on the July-25 promise.

Taylor said that, on the 26th, the trio asked Zelensky how the call went. I wonder, who brought up the call as a topic to begin with? I doubt very much that Zelensky did. Taylor said that Zelensky said, "the call was fine," which are at times words one speaks when not intending to give details...which makes it appear that the trio brought up the call to begin with. Did they tell Zelensky how they knew the call happened? Were they not ashamed of themselves for being in his office like three cops the day after the "crime."

I say that Trump and/or his lawyers have an aversion to releasing damning info so long as they firmly believe that this impeachment push is so ruinous to Democrats that he'll be re-elected. If this is a correct assessment, it's what I despise about Trump, that he cares more for re-election than drowning swamp creatures. Maybe, just maybe, Trump will clean swamp in his last four years when there's no re-election to be concerned with. Perhaps that's the plan, but wait: if you let the enemy run free until after 2020, it'll devise more ruinous plots in the meantime. It's going to make the election season very bumpy, and no one knows for sure whether the Trump bus will break down upon those bumps. Rip its tongue out now, for starters, buy humiliating it with exposive (coined a new word) "war papers"

Why has Trump not ordered an investigation into CrowdStrike? Yes, Wray's people would leak such a Trump request, and they will make it appear that Trump is guilty of self-interested politics, using the FBI for personal benefits, but so what? Let that be another battle in the public forum, for Trump will win it, because he's the president, no minor person, with the right to defend himself from internal enemies who committed one of the highest crimes possible upon an individual. If the FBI won't defend the president on its own motivation, the president can order it.

Here's Tucker's contribution:

Here's a nice sound from Alison Krauss, it really doesn't matter what the lyrics are:

Women were made to sound angelic, but not all women like that idea much these days. Surely, God made women to make men more Godly. Surely, women were made to be eyes pointing to God, for the wayward man. Oh, ouch, how the liberal woman has failed God this generation. She's a piece of junk for the family. It hurts no one more than God. The man's support base has abandoned her station so that weakness pervades in liberal circles. The strength of a man has become the house wrecker because she wasn't interested in being the strength of a man. She wanted self upon the pedestal from which her eyes look down, not up to God. She's in love with herself. She's now the object, and the man who pursues her is the loaf of bread to be eaten.

This is the liberal grub lusting for power in 2020. The garbage is trying to make everyone into garbage. Time to take back the world from this diseased humanity, yet it will fight with the devil to keep it from happening. It doesn't realize how sick it is. Best thing: stay away from it lest it grow on your soul. Warn everyone about it. Anyone going forward without respect and love of God will fall to something similar. We had best remember the love that God is capable toward us, because your love will grow cold unless you keep the love-of-God-for-you in your heart. That love teaches you how to love God in return, the love you can have for others. God's love in us is like a substance in us, not merely His regards from far off.

Love for our enemies does not mean that we accept them as they are, sick and dangerous and Hell-bent. If by accepting sinners we happily allow them to remain as they are, we are accomplices to their murder. Liberals accept one another as they are, allowing them to be what they want to be. We cannot be like that. Things must be changed. When you speak with people, be proud of the morality you aspire and hold to, as you inform them of that morality little-by-little, seed after seed. They'll probably figure out that you're a Christian even if you don't tell them, if you're talking the talk. If you've decided to side with God's morality, have a good time in your life, be free, abound in inner fatness, for there is no law of restraint for the person well-trained in Jesus' right ways. Morality will overcome mortality.

It's not just the liberal woman that's a piece of junk, but me too, without God. The liberal woman can be the CEO, but she's still a piece of junk if all she's good at is running a company. It's how a person runs things that matters, but liberals, by definition those who resist the Spirit, are following a different power in their workplace. The liberal CEO has her reward for running the company, but in God's economy, her reward is a trip to the crushing site, to be flattened and thrown out like a car in a fatal accident. Stop resisting God. Give up your friends who resist God, and make friends with those who accept Jesus as God #2. The Father is God #1, and Jesus God #2. They are identical. Jesus is the reproduction of the Father, so says the Bible. God #2 submits to God #1 so that God #2 will rule the planet as God #1 would. Jesus did not come to judge the world, but after submitting to death in obedience to God #1, the latter made him the ruler of the universe with the authority to judge the world. He's coming back as Judge and to sentence our enemies.

Impeach Day Two

"This is not the time [for Trump] to undercut" the American ambassadors / diplomats in Ukraine, said to day's chief "witness." She's poo-pooing Trump for removing her from the Ukraine, and claiming that the sky is falling on Ukraine as a result. No, the sky won't fall even if there is zero relationship between Ukraine and the U.S. She proves that she deserves to be undercut and humiliated because she denies American corruption in Ukraine. That is always the bottom line. Trump opposes American corruption in Ukraine, and diplomats like this weasel deny that corruption.

Yovanovitch says that part of her function as an ambassador is to report to Washington. Why, then, did she not make the Biden scandal an issue to the president? Why didn't she see the Hillary-camp crimes against Trump, if in fact she didn't see them? I'm implying that, as an ambassador to the Ukraine, she surely must be concerned about the reports of Hillary's campaign seeking to make Trump look like a Putin asset via Ukrainians. AND, THE POINT IS, surely the Democrat diplomats of that region contributed to the DNC Trump-attack. It's a perfect set-up for the Trump-attack because the Ukraine involves the Russian annexation of a Ukraine region, and thus by making Trump look pro-Russia, they can really do some damage to him. The Ukraine therefore becomes indispensable for the Trump-attack scheme, and here we are with his enemies in congress still seeking to push this thing. It's a conspiracy.

When she's was done with her statement, Schiff (and other democrats) got 45 minutes to make Trump look like an abuser against her. Yes, trump did abuse her, by humiliating her, treating her like a piece of junk, but maybe he knows details about her that we don't yet know. This impeachment process is bucking to have Trump bring out the worst of the evidence against the Obama government in Ukraine. Don't knock this process, for it stands the chance of exposing Obama.

When Goldman questions her, she testifies that Giuliani, in league with Lutshenko and Shokin, were on a "smear" campaign against her. Okay, but we want to know why, and Goldman's not going to treat this as one who wants the truth. All he does it create sympathy for the liberal piece of junk as she does her part with near-to-weeping responses. But wait, Lutshenko and Shokin were both Ukraine prosecutors seeking to undo American corruption in Ukraine; doesn't this matter to Goldman? Nope, not at all. It's like this liberal piece of junk wishes for us to ignore that even the Ukraine itself, which she was supposed to be serving, thought her to be a part of the problem.

So, the impeachment is portraying Trump as an abusive element who sent Giuliani to Ukraine to destroy both she and her holy Ukraine agenda. Not so fast. We'd like to hear from the Republican supermen on this key issue. But why didn't they ask Giuliani to come sit in with this process???? He's knows first-hand information on this very issue? Maybe they'll ask Giuliani to come testify after the Democrats have condemned themselves with lies against him. Makes sense.

It's my opinion that Yavonovitch's body language, when Goldman brings up the report of her giving the Ukrainians the do-not-hit-list, that she's hiding her face as best she can from the camera for the purpose of denying the report. That is, her face goes frozen, her eyes away from the camera, and her next verbal response seems unnatural and not played as well as a skilled liar could play it. Just my opinion. She even denies that Biden was incriminating himself for all the world to see, which is all we need to see of this piece of junk to know that her weepy responses are feigned. We've seen this before from Democrat garbage.

She then condemns herself further by saying "no" to whether she championed the sort of anti-corruption that Trump was seeking to understand. She lied. She said nothing beyond "no" because she lied. Adding more word to a lie is dangerous. Goldman seems to realize that he just led her into perjury, and is slow to come back with the next question. Goldman ends by portraying Trump, with she in agreement, as one seeking to further his re-election by attacking both she and Biden.

This is working out super, don't knock it. It mortal war, perfect. Yovanovitch wants to portray Trump as the abuser even while she abuses him by denying the shark-attack on him. I'd say it's all up-river for her slippery-fish side as the Republicans get to come forth to force her into further perjury. She has committed to perjury here today, and her friends in the House expect her to perjure herself to the end of this process. Will she crack under Nunes and the others, exposing a damning reality? I hope so.

Schiff complained today that Trump is refusing to release thousands and thousands of paper records. Perfect. Trump now has the invitation from the Chair to release war papers against them. If Trump likes the "perfect" word for his releases, here's his opportunity to release beautiful papers revealing Obama corruption in Ukraine. But where's Pompeo? Isn't he working on this case for his president? I've never seen anything from Pompeo that amounts to a released war paper. Trump chose the wrong man, apparently, to lead his state department. I can't be confident at all that Pompeo's coming to rescue Trump in this frenzy. All of the Ukraine paperwork is under Pompeo's arse, and I think he's sitting on it, but please-please prove me wrong. I want Pompeo to shine at this moment.

[On the last day of this update: "Trump has fumed for weeks that Pompeo is responsible for hiring State Department officials whose congressional testimony threatens to bring down his presidency, the officials said. The president confronted Pompeo about the officials — and what he believed was a lackluster effort by the secretary of state to block their testimony — during lunch at the White House on Oct. 29, those familiar with the matter said...Trump particularly blames Pompeo for tapping Ambassador Bill Taylor in June to be the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, the current and former senior administration officials said. (NBC). This claim comes, as usual, from unnamed sources now or once in Trump's administration.]

The onus is on Trump to prove that he fired the ambassador for good reason. If he doesn't have the proof, he now needs to go find it. One would think that the president did have the proof from the start because he didn't want a repeat of his Comey debacle. What's Pompeo doing today? What papers has he been digging up for his president in the past few months as he saw the impeachment hearings as a sure-fire event? Giuliani has records including the claim by Viktor Shokin that Biden forced him to lose his job from the previous Ukraine leadership to which Yovanovitch was committed. One expects Yovanovitch to show sympathy for Shokin just as she shows a cry-baby face on behalf of her lost job. Instead, this piece of junk will claim that Shokin is corrupt and lying to Giuliani. Biden himself admitted that he had Shokin fired, but this piece of garbage claimed today she never heard Biden make such a confession. I can barely believe how inhumanly brazen these liberals are.

Yova (for short) had little choice but to perjure herself yet again because the entire Schiffite case, using her, is in her denial that she sought to protect Biden against pro-Trump forces seeking to expose him. So, if she admits that she heard Biden incriminate himself, it's game over on that particular Schiffite game.

Yova said she called the Obama state department when Lutsenko came against her, rather than calling Lutshenko, because, she said, the latter has "animus." Okay, so the going-forward should stress what Lutsenko had on her, fair enough.

After making herself appear ever-so-concerned about Ukraine corruption, Yova testified that she knew little of the Burisma corruption, but that she had heard about it. Achem, as an ambassador who has the mission of curbing corruption, why wasn't Burisma corruption on her dinner plate? We all know the answer. She WAS staying close to the Burisma updates, we can safely assume, but she doesn't want to divulge this to Republicans in this hearing. It's her Achilles heal.

So, this piece of junk is hard on Lutsenko for not going after Poroshenko, the latter having ruled the country some years before Lutsenko's time, but then she herself was not going after Burisma of a time before she arrived to the country. The Burisma corruption was much closer to her responsibilities than overseeing Lutsenko's agenda, wouldn't you say? yes, because it was known to her that Joe Biden's son was suspiciously with Burisma. Uh-hum, that's right. But today she's going, "Joe who? Burisma what?" Schiff has brought the true guilty to his kangaroo court, and in this case, she's wiggling. She admits that, because she arrived (August 2016) after Hunter Biden came to be part of Burisma, "it was not a focus of what I was doing." Achem, I see. Let Biden corruption stand and prosper, I see.

She was asked whether anyone brought the Biden scandal to her attention on merely bad-appearances, and she's wiggling like a worm because, nope, she's unable to say that it was becoming a major issue, because, she says, she just didn't get involved with it. Ouch, this piece of junk is burning hot with self-inflicted fire. All she said was that she was "aware" of the bad-appearance problem. That's not the same as digging in to rectify it, is it? That's not the same as investigating for Biden corruption, is it? No, but, she admits, she was aware that the problem existed. Like I said, self-inflicted mortal sin; she did wrong, and she cracked, unable to lie fully. She knew there was a limit to how much she could lie for Schiff, and here she breaks down to protect herself as best she can, yet she's missing the mark by far. Aware but not interested. GUILTY! The more she portrays herself as anti-corruption, the worse she looks with the massive log in her own eye.

She says that Poroshenko told the White House that Ukraine was "the most corrupt country in the world." Oh goodie, Obama and Biden responded, with the Clintons chiming in, let's go take advantage. And this piece of junk closed her eyes, and maybe held out her hand for some table scraps.

Wow, the Republican asked her whether it was brought to her attention that pro-DNC elements in Ukraine were going after Trump. When she responded, she deflected and spoke only to what she knew in the time frame when Trump was in office. When the same Republican failed to press her on what she heard or knew while Obama was still in the White House, she looked very relieved. Ugh, that was a huge miss/failure by the questioner.

Eventually, she denies that she knew of any bona fide Trump-attack from the Ukraine, a denial that could come back to bite her, especially if Pompeo is going through her 2016 files to check whether she's being an honest broker for the country she claims to serve faithfully. She begins to look happy with her own progress under this line of questioning, as though she has a good line of defence for not knowing much about the trump-attack. So, Pompeo needs papers that show otherwise on what she knew in 2016, and what she did or did not do about it.

Bottom line, this heaping junk was resentful that Trump should dare inject himself in Ukraine matters seeking a broader understand of the corruption that she herself should have been dealing with. That spells, "you're fired!". She has no defense, because she claimed that she was aware of the problems, both those of the Bidens and of the DNC Trump-attack (she says she didn't take clues to the latter seriously). Once she was the ambassador under Trump, she had no right to shrug off reports that Hillary's camp was using Ukrainian assets to attack candidate Trump, but, very safe to say, she's feminist wanting feminist Hillary to be in the White House.

Now the Schiffites are trying to make a big deal out of Trump's 55-day freeze on aid that was slated in part for "lethal" weapons, but Obama never once gave Ukraine lethal weapons while Ukraine was in a hot war with Crimea. How can these Schiffites justify this bad-light portrayal of Trump when this piece of junk ambassador sits before them who never once complained to Obama for his lack of lethal-weapons money? This piece of junk complained herself today that Trump's mere-55-day delay was a big risky scary boneheaded thing to do to Ukraine. This junk heap is playing politics along with Schiffites, but wanting to come across professional. So, I agree, she deserved to be fired on multiple counts, especially for her happily going along with this impeachment sham. Every once in a while, I can catch her subtly celebrating to self that things are going well enough for her to be getting away with her role in the sham.

Zelensky himself didn't want this piece of junk, and we can see exactly why not. She's one of the corruption puppets. She's an Obamaite too. Zelensky could see right through her. Zelensky believed that junk heap was a Poroshenko agent, and maybe Zelensky knows more about Ukraine's troubles than junk heap and Schiff heap combined.

The definition of "piece of junk" in this context is "something worthless even to Schiff." Day Two ended flat, useless.

Jesse Watters on The Five made the excellent point that while Ukraine and Russia were at war, the Bidens were making conflict-of-interest money off of Ukraine. The piece of garbage didn't mention that, however, even though it involved exactly her turf, even though she came to that turf while son-Biden was still making money at Burisma. She didn't write the state department to complain probably because she knew the chief of that department was in on things with son-Biden. This is the trash now being portrayed as a darling by leftist media. How do they get away with it? They don't. The new way of leftist media is to report the news naked, and claim that exposing their obscenities is now acceptable. They are even saying that the deep state is an appreciated / needed organ of the country. I knew that was coming. Instead of hiding, the deep state is fronting itself in some circles as the real patriot. One should look to the Council on Foreign Relations as the invisible head of this snake.

Solomon Given Credit For Ukraine-Scandal News

If you can find the Hannity show for Friday night, John Solomon gives quite a few reasons for condemning the Yova junk heap as an active player in Ukraine corruption. She wasn't only turning a blind eye to Americo-Ukraine corruption; Solomon says she was involved with the Trump-attack:

In March, Solomon reported that Ukraine’s then prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, said Yovanovitch had given him a list of people who should not be prosecuted for crimes, and that she was bad-mouthing President Trump behind the scenes.

In testimony on Friday, Yovanovitch denied those claims and talked about the impact it had on her that the stories were being spread.

Did Lutsenko fool Solomon with a trick? Was the do-not-hit list bogus? Was Solomon quick to get fooled for the great news juiciness of this Ukraine claim? "Solomon said Friday [day two of the impeachment] that 'I stand by each and every one of the columns that I wrote' and that they were carefully vetted by lawyers and editors at The Hill. He said multiple witnesses confirmed his reporting that the U.S. embassy applied pressure not to prosecute certain individuals." I'm hearing that Solomon has left The Hill, probably pushed out by anti-Trump associates. As you can see, even a media that is not for Trump gave Solomon's claim on junk heap the okie-dokie.

There's only one thing to do: the leftist media needs to ask Solomon onto its shows to explain why he's sticking to his story. Instead, they slander Solomon from afar. Ms. Junk has in effect slandered his reporting by denying the do-not-hit list. So, surely, the Ukrainians have the actually list that can be shown to us. Where is it?

Now look-see at this (same article):

While Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity’s role received tangential attention on Friday, he has said that he only mentioned Yovanovitch "a few times in passing" on his top-rated show, a pillar in conservative media. Hannity has also denied earlier testimony from diplomat George Kent that the State Department applied pressure on Hannity to back off covering Solomon’s allegations.

I think this explains why Solomon's appearances on Hannity are kept short, and why Hannity never digs in for a deeper conversation into his bombshells. Fox is compromised and will not delve into topics that others do. But do understand that the state department that Kent refers to is that of Pompeo's. Doesn't that seem like a knife in your back, pro-Trumper? Is Pompeo just a deep-snake war-hawking piece of trash? Where's his assistance to Trump, and his damning of the deep-state darlings with official records going back to the Obama years? He has at his fingertips all of that. Barr has a right to request that material, and to use it against the deep-snake. Who really rules the country? Who are the invisible heads of this American snake?

It is to the glory of Jesus to crush the head of snakes. He said he's divided families, and how he wishes that the fire he's bringing was already kindled. He longs for the snake's destruction, in other words, and will divide families, not because God likes division, but because families will become part-Christian. Weeds and wheat don't see eye-to-eye; weeds hate Christians and will war against them. It's what divides Democrats from Christians these very days. It's us they hate the most. The scene for the kindling of the fires is right here before us in the news. The situation is God's permitting the snake to thrive for to set-up the return of Jesus with fire. No one is permitted to kill this snake but Jesus. It is His glory, not that of Trump. Do you understand? Will you accept this? God will allow them to persecute some of us, but woe unto them.

Obviously, we should not mistaken Trump supporters for Christians, and we've got to remain loyal to Jesus. We are not of this world, yet we regard its conditions because we live in it. If Trump wishes to conform more to our mindset rather than we more to the worldly mindset of Trump supporters, I suppose that's a good thing for him and for all. But it's doubtful to happen.

The snake will destroy people systematically: "President Donald Trump’s attempt to force the government of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden was launched through a disinformation campaign whose first and chief propagator was John Solomon, a conservative columnist with a pattern of publishing false and misleading stories. His work, according to the Washington Post, 'has played an important role in advancing a flawed, Trump-friendly tale of corruption in Ukraine.'" Will Hannity go to Solomon's aid as Solomon now becomes the chief target of slander? There is a great opportunity to slash this snakes to pieces, if only Trump would secure the war papers. Why does Solomon need to supply all of his papers from the Ukraine when Pompeo has them under his arse? What really is going on? What really is Pompeo's stumbling block? Is it Trump's stumbling block? I would like to know. I would like this problem naked on the table and under the lights.

The same article as the quote above: "The State Department labeled the charges in Solomon’s initial article about Yovanovitch “an outright fabrication.” " What state department? Solomon's news on this issue started earlier this year, but Pompeo has been the head of the state department since April of 2018. Why did Pompeo allow his department to label Solomon's news as a fabrication? Why wasn't this claim a big story on Hannity? Is Hannity the champion without hands? Is Hannity the superhero without arms? Is Fox allowing itself to be crippled this easily by the enemy? Alas, to Fox's bosses, the deep state in not the enemy, but the holy cow to be pumped of its milk for making daily bread and daily dough.

The article now being quoted from says that Lutsenko changed his story, denying the existence of the do-no-prosecute list. But even if that denial is correct, there can be different reasons for it aside from the truth. Hannity yet continues to have Solomon on his show; there's a good chance that Hannity has explained to Solomon that his hands and arms are tied by Fox bosses. Yet Hannity, so far as I've seen, has not had a story to deny Solomon's work. Why not? The writer of the article would have the reader believe that Solomon, Giuliani and the diGenova's were involved in a web of Ukraine corruption of their own. I haven't the strength / will to look into the article's several allegations, but if you'd like to read them, be my guest knowing that the left fabricates lies routinely:

I'm going to trust that Solomon is not a corrupt actor, and that he's pushing nothing but pure news. He came out swinging on Day Two while a rash of leftist media tried to bat him to the ground. Here's a question posed by him to Yovanovitch which I don't think the Republican side asked her in the hearing:

Back in May 2018 [Pompeo's first month at State], then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggesting you might have made comments unflattering or unsupportive of the president and should be recalled. Setting aside that Sessions is a Republican and might even have donors interested in Ukraine policy, were you ever questioned about his concerns? At any time have you or your embassy staff made comments that could be viewed as unsupportive or critical of President Trump and his policies?

As one can see between the lines, Solomon seems to be wondering about Pompeo's loyalty, whether to Yova or to Trump. In any case, the final question above was key to forcing Yova to perjure herself, which I think she would have done, judging by her attitude at the hearing, if that question was posed. In no way would she want to reveal her animosities to Trump before her removal, and especially not her role in a criminal anti-Trump conspiracy. We really do want to know on whose side Pompeo is. Will he turn out to be another bad choice by Trump? The same page by Solomon has this biting question:

John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in testimony that the [Obama] State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros’ main charity. That nonprofit, also known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros’ vision. Can you explain what role your embassy played in funding this group and why State funds would flow to it? And did any one consider the perception of mingling tax dollars with those donated by Soros, a liberal ideologue who spent millions in 2016 trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump?

Now that, my friends, is a real investigative reporter needed for this time. You bet your best piece of junk that any Ukraine anti-corruption org set up by the Soros weeds was used to kill corruption competition. The last thing Soros wanted was for other groups to steal the tax money he was planning to seize. One could not be involved with a greater corruption and killing machine than that of the Soros cabal.

Solomon's next point goes to the Lutsenko accusation against Yova:

In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record, videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target. Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you just rely on press reports?

It's hard to believe that Lutsenko was fabricating this charge because he's doing it on video with a news organization. It's one thing to slip Solomon a few fake-scenario news bits by word of mouth, but quite another to have them recorded in this way. If I recall correctly, Pompeo supported Yova's ouster...which in itself doesn't prove to me that he was sincerely for it.

Solomon's question to Yavo tends to indicate that Lutsenko's recanting was mere hearsay, unproven. But why couldn't Solomon just phone Lutsenko to ask him personally on whether or not he changed his story? Is Lutsenko in hiding? Is he dead? Or is he refusing to speak with Solomon due to threats on his life by the deep-snake?

Solomon should have been in the impeachment hearing with Yova. Republicans always fall short of killing this snake. They always let it live. Why why why? Schiff could not have rejected Solomon's appearance on a Republican witness list. Lindsey Graham's senate committee can still have Solomon on, but Republicans are happy to suffice with Yova's inability to advance the impeachment arguments of the Schiffites. So long as establishment Republicans can have political survival for the moment, they refuse to attack the snake fully for fear of further retribution. But now is the time to cut it in half because the president is at least in lip-service mortal war with it. This president cannot afford to be seen as protecting the head of this snake. He'll step on its tail, but for some reason he's refusing to do more.

Republicans need Trump in the White House in 2020 if they have decided they can't run a Republican opponent against him. Their alternative is to support impeachment for to put Pence at the helm, but the few pro-Trumpers are keeping the pro-impeachment Republicans silent for the moment because it's politically dangerous to come out now while grounds for impeachment has not materialized. Some Fox anchors (Baier and Wallace) are reporting that Yova has made impeachment justified, if you can believe that.

Ah, wonderbar, look:

Now that both the New York Times and The Hill have confirmed that Lutsenko stands by his account and has not recanted, how do you respond to his concerns? And setting aide the use of the word “list,” is it possible that during that 2016 meeting with Mr. Lutsenko you discussed the names of certain Ukrainians you did not want to see prosecuted, investigated or harassed?

That's from Solomon again. He doesn't even need to ask Lutsenko because the Times has done it for him. It suggests that Lutsenko's recanting was leftist fakery. Solomon is really sharp where he emphasize's "list," because Yova might try to deny Solomon's charge, if asked about it, only to expound later, if she's caught providing some names on one or more occasions, that it wasn't technically a list she handed to Lutsenko.

Solomon's next point even uses Kent against Yova, showing that Solomon's charge was more than based only on Lutsenko:

Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials. These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure...?

I differ with Solomon, thus far, only on the recipient of these questions. They should go to Pompeo. Pompeo's department has access to the records that show any related embassy business. The embassy is now under Pompeo's command, yet William Taylor (current ambassador) was the one chosen to replace Yova, and he's just as bad for the Trump side. How in tarnation did that outcome come about? Did Pompeo choose Taylor? "In August 2017, Pompeo took direct command of the Counterintelligence Mission Center, the department which helped to launch an investigation into possible links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Former CIA directors {who?} expressed concern since Pompeo is known to be an ally of Trump". Or, Pompeo was secretly Trump's enemy but failed to find the collusion using all of the CIA's machinery. "On April 15, 2019, Pompeo participated in a Q&A discussion at Texas A&M University, where he admitted: 'I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses'" (his Wikipedia article). He sounds at least like a partial rat. What do you think he meant by, "we stole"? Why does Trump tolerate this CIA pet in his state department? But wait. Trump chose him for State. Are we sure that Trump's not the chief rat, a master of intrigue?

Taylor's first Ukraine-theater job came under Bill Clinton, and he kept that job for all eight years of Clinton's years. Taylor then had key posts in Bush's foreign policy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. "In 2004, Taylor was transferred to Baghdad as Director of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office." For me, Taylor looks a key part of the intra-9-11 machinery. That is, I doubt that Bush would fill that key post in Baghdad, at the start of his Iraqi victory, with someone he could not trust on the 9-11 crimes. Pompeo is on the war-hawk side of things, yet under Trump he's changing that tune. Are we sure he's not feigning loyalty to Trump so that he can work as the highest-level mole-rat?

"Taylor was nominated by President George W. Bush to be the United States ambassador to Ukraine while Taylor was serving as Senior Consultant to the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization at the Department of State." From Baghdad to Ukraine, though Obama took him back to the Middle East after firing all ambassadors that had been under Bush. What could this tell us, that Obama would keep Taylor, shifting him to his sinister, anti-Israeli plots for the Middle East. "Taylor was appointed Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions in September 2011. From then through 2013, Taylor's mission was to ensure effective U.S. support for the countries of the Arab revolutions, coordinating assistance to Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria." Wow, right into the thick of Obama's weapons shipments to ISIS and company. His Wikipedia article doesn't tell how he became the Ukraine ambassador after Yova's ouster. If he was appointed by Trump, how can the latter once again choose his own enemy to fill a key post...critical for downing the deep state. Is this president just a twit, or a chief rat, master of deception?

It should be clear to all that Taylor's rebellion against Trump was swift upon Yova's dismissal, and that it was coordinated with the CIA "whistle-blower" now in humiliated hiding. There is no need for Solomon to capitulate to this weak hand held by the deep state during this new round of scheming media attacks. Solomon's on solid ground, and the left only pierces itself when merely mentioning his name. Solomon knows that Taylor didn't need to be disturbed with trump's phone call because Zelensky didn't mind giving trump his request, and thus there was no real concern for the weapons freeze. But Taylor made it look like security risk to Ukraine because he's a rat. If he were not a rat, he would have applauded Trump's win-win phone call that included uncovering Biden and Yova foul play in Ukraine. Day Two has put Solomon into a glorious position exactly due to the attacks on his stories and character.

Solomon's calling out Soros corruption while he digs in. Consider in his next question to Yova that the anti-corruption organizations in the Ukraine were set up in collusion with Soros for the purpose of destroying others seeking to profit from Ukraine money bags who are not sanctioned by Soros-related groups. In the latter category, we naturally place Hunter Biden, right?

On March 5 of this year, you [Yovanowitch] gave a speech in which you called for the replacement of Ukraine’s top anti-corruption prosecutor. That speech occurred in the middle of the Ukrainian presidential election and obviously raised concerns among some Ukrainians of internal interference prohibited by the Geneva Convention. In fact, one of your bosses, Under Secretary David Hale, got questioned about those concerns when he arrived in country a few days later. Why did you think it was appropriate to give advice to Ukrainians on an internal personnel matter and did you consider then or now the potential concerns your comments might raise about meddling in the Ukrainian election or the country’s internal affairs?

If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate [great question]?

Meddling in elections is a deep-state staple, everyone who understands American foreign policy acknowledge's it. The junk-heap witch saw the Ukraine anti-corruption prosecutor's office go from Poroshenko's hands into Zelensky's, a very key turn-of-events that is coming to expose a key turf of Democrat globalists. I'm wondering whether God is bringing about this turn of events because he wants to expose Soros. Everytime I see his face in the news, I see snake guts. It's not a wonder he's married to the Democrat party. We should expect Soros-based plots to destroy Zelensky as soon as possible. It is compulsory that trump replace Taylor...unless he has the CIA spying on him for his benefit. But so far as we know, Trump still can't trust the CIA because he didn't put a loyalist at its charge. Trump's either a repeat-offender twit, or a chief rat.

So, Solomon makes the newly-arisen darling of the Democrats look like the witch of the wicked east. She's not only involved in election interference to get the wicked witch of Arkansas elected, but she was actively seeking to save the Soros-government puppet, Poroshenko. Now why do we think that Yova was so interested in toppling the new anti-corruption office if not to cover for the Clintons, the Bidens and John Kerry's family? Hello? Marie Superyova, the death of a star.

John Solomon obtained documents showing Burisma representatives were pressuring the State Department in February 2016 to help end the corruption allegations against the company and were invoking Hunter Biden’s name as part of their effort. Did you ever subsequently learn of these contacts and did any one at State — including but not limited to Secretary Kerry, Undersecretary Novelli, Deputy Secretary Blinken or Assistant Secretary Nuland — ever raise Burisma with you?

That was a real bombshell by Solomon, and media reaction to it (or non-reaction) tells all about American corruption. The same snake guts seeking to build a new Ukraine in Soros' image is entrenched in the CIA and state department thanks largely to an Obama presidency following on the heals of Bush on the heals of Clinton on the heals of CIA director Bush. It's a nasty, nasty serpent that will kill, it really will, the enemy. It cannot be overcome unless Trump finds a way to get war papers. It must be exposed to the point where the leftist media is forced to oppose the deep state by overwhelming public pressure...and we know the media must never be allowed to arise in the same form as it's in now. We have seen, we are witnesses. If only Google would bring up the John Solomons of the news on its first-page results. Instead, we all get deep-state news.

Solomon has a page showing Yova's resistance in which she wants to see a transformation of Ukraine "into a modern, prosperous European democracy". That's exactly the pattern that's wrong for the world. It's the globalist, control-freak society leading to the enslavement of its citizens. You can bet that they want to hook peoples brains to the Internet so that they can tell what people are thinking at any time. It's not enough to want cameras and mics in your household appliances; they want them in your skull. Russians in Crimea should consider themselves very lucky to escape this Soros society so far. The Russians, at least, know enough to resist faggots while CNN hires them. Surely, the new Ukraine will be urged to birth CNNS to maintain the "civil" society of Soros.

In her speech, she probably portrays the good guys (or at least the better guys) as corrupt:

The Constitutional Court’s decision is, we believe, a serious setback in the fight against corruption in Ukraine. It weakens Ukraine’s anti-corruption architecture, including the soon-to-be established High Anti-Corruption Court [expect Soros fingers] and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (expect Soros fingers].

[She goes on to say how important it is for Ukraine to have the corruption-clean judges]

...To ensure the integrity of anticorruption institutions, the Special Anticorruption Prosecutor [Lutsenko] must be replaced. Nobody who has been recorded coaching suspects on how to avoid corruption charges can be trusted to prosecute those very same cases.

Those responsible for corruption should be investigated, prosecuted, and if guilty, go to jail. And in order for that to happen, all of the elements of the anti-corruption architecture must be in place and must be working effectively.

Yikes, a special organization to assure that corrupt actors face her kind of judges and go to jail as surely as Soros gloats. I agree, jail time, but I'd like to see whether Lutsenko is truly guilty, or whether this is a mere concoction of the sorts we're seeing in the United States. Building a new country today with all the players desired by Soros is the building of a dictatorship by the invisible hands of Soros and company. It's the shadow-government with its control-measure institutions. They want Ukraine patterned after deep-state America. Soros worked Ukraine strings under Poroshenko's rule, right?

Poor Soros, all that hard work going to a stone rolling back over him. The deep state is known for toppling governments by activism from within, a Soros specialty; it's how president Poroshenko was born. The corruption masters have a swell name for all of their control-measure movements and institutions. Poroshenko's rise was dubbed, Revolution of Dignity. The invisibles are seeking to pacify and disarm Ukrainians on the street by having them rest assured that dignity came to hold the country strong. John Kerry's point man, David Hale, rushed to Ukraine, after a 22-year absence, in the middle of the election that saw Poroshenko slip and fall. Hale did a speech at that time calling for fair elections...which sounds to me like a pretext for calling Zelensky's win a sham based on rigged polls, if the Poroshenko side thought that scheme could work.

We could say that, if not for Solomon, Trump would have been swallowed whole by the shark. As it is, he's only half down the throat with the ability to crawl out...if someone comes along to smack the shark on its head from behind. Yes, Solomon's work on Yovanovitch is more than slowing the momentum desired by anti-Trumpers on Day Two. It's complicating the road that Schiffites would take us down. Week Two cometh, but it's bound to relate material that Solomon -- and maybe Giuliani too -- can continue to answer in rebuttal.

Trump on the Bongino show of Thursday has some good points on the Intelligence inspector general:

Bongino and Trump have workhorse in common. I think I caught Trump promising that, if he gets the House back, he'll go for extra middle-class tax cuts. Below is Trump's very-good handling of the press on this day two:

That's the temperament I'd like to see from Trump more often, straight-forward, giving good advice with a gentleness that can't be knocked. It actually enters the realm of love your enemies, because he was telling the malicious how to improve themselves without malice (on his part). It looks good on him, yet I absolutely don't fault him for tossing harsh bombs at the media that send them reeling. There is a place for stern rebukes, at the heights of their delinquency.

We are at the brink of the Horowitz report. How will this affect the impeachment? Will Schiff and Pelosi quit for fear of DNC backlash? Or will the DNC demand more of the same as the only 2020 hope? Will Barr wait until impeachment is over before releasing the report so that the news can treat it more exclusively?

Here's Gohmert's letter to Pompeo requesting the war papers against the Bidens, a letter dated November 6. How dare that Pompeo has not yet written back, and it's already the 15th. We expect a yes-right-away answer the day after receiving the letter, for Gohmert represents a host of congressional judges (decision-makers) and referees (rule-keepers). I have a sense that Mr. Pompous thinks he can't just give up state-department papers to the public (Gohmert would share the papers with the public). But what's wrong with the public, Mr. Pompeo? Are they some sort of disease in your brain? Is the state department some sort of exclusive / private club that the public has no right to oversee? You have that very wrong, Pompeo. Don't be an insult to the president's voters, give up the papers promptly, with the best ammunition at your department's disposal.

Here's more reading from jsolomonReports.

Obama is getting nervous this week that concerted leftist attack is becoming a stone rolling back upon itself. Keep it coming, Nunes knights. Courage in you is fear in them. When they start running, don't sit back.

Fired-up AG Bill Barr says the Democrats are 'using every tool' to 'sabotage' President Trump in a 'scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of resistance' and slams the Left for their 'constant harassment' that is 'dangerous' to America.

Barr made remarks at conference held by Federalist Society in Washington, DC.. is the left that is engaged in a systematic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law,’ Barr told guests of the Federalist Society convention in the capital

(Daily Mail).

It's a good sign. But the people want Barr, not to preach on how bad the Democrats are ruinous, but to arrest the whistle-blower on charges of a coup attempt with conspirators.

The article reminds us: "Barr’s remarks came on the same day that his Justice Department secured a conviction against a former Trump associate, Roger Stone." I don't know Stone's ideas much, but it looks like a travesty of justice that he should get such a heavy hammer if others far worse than he get to skate thanks to the leniency of the Barr's department. Stone's crime was, essentially, fighting back against the deep state while being part of the Trump team. He's the latest victim in a string while exactly zero on the deep-state side have been arrested let alone prosecuted. The people are witnessing this. The longer this war continues, the more the people see how the mobsters work.

Barr's trying to talk sense into criminalized delinquents.

Science Stuff, Because I Need a Break from Deep State

I like this Ken Ham presentation on a genetics-based argument against evolution, made for kids, which is why even I can understand it:

Have you noticed that educators are talking faster, too fast, these days? It's the same on talk shoes, for example news-opinion shows. Why are people talking so fast that listeners can't digest things taught as well? Is this a better? I don't think so, but it makes for a more-exciting look to the show, and people are wanting fast videos to boot, out of impatience, or maybe an addiction to get to the next video. Relax. Get a foot stool at your computer station. Look at how fast the presentation above is, for kids. ???? Training people to think too fast is bound to come with more mistakes, the absence of key information when tackling a problem or discussing an issue / controversy. If you talk slow, you can sometimes catch yourself adding a thing to your conversation. If you talk too fast and miss that thing, your listener is bound to say "but." "Yes, but...I have this other thing that you missed."

I was horrendous in school when the teacher talked so fast I was still trying to figure out what she/he meant in the first sentence while she was on the third or forth sentence. They lost me. Teachers produce "dummies" when they talk too fast. Slow down, world. Let the listener think healthily when you talk. Pause between sentences, at least at times.

The video tells of a theory in which the Greenland ice mass formed in a few centuries by the greater evaporation rates immediately after the Flood. I can agree with greater precipitation rates after the Flood, and therefore some faster rates than today of ice-build up, but I don't think that's the whole story. I had read that the average thickness of Greenland ice is 5,000 feet, and i call reading that the average annual precipitation on Greenland and Antarctica is nearly a foot. I also recall reading that the ice on Greenland never melts but at the coasts. Therefore, it seems that most of the ice build-up has been from the 8-10 inches of precipitation -- not 8-10 inches of snow, but of water equivalence -- over the past 4,300 years roughly since the Flood. I totally reject the "ice age" as an evolutionist's fantasy, and I think it's blockheaded to try to explain it by the Flood. Sorry, Ken. It's blockheaded because it didn't happen.

Historically, sea level has been going down. Cities on the ocean shore a few thousand years ago (e.g. at the Persian gulf in Iraq) are now a long ways from the shore. The decrease in sea level has been so great in the past four thousand years that it's got to have been a worldwide decrease. The only explanation is that disappeared sea water has been building in frozen form in both polar regions...via regular snowfall, of course. Just look at how easy this paragraph is to understand...meaning that the biggest blockheads of all are ice-age evolutionists.

I'm no expert in ice ages because I've refused to read up on it, because I know it's false by default of the historical realities. Here's an old video (with a slow speaker) suggesting evidence of the ice-age glaciers that can instead be interpreted as accomplished by wet water at or after the Flood. The "scratches" in the rock can at times be from water rolling rocks and boulders along a soft sediment at the Flood that since hardened into rock. The evolutionist might say that the scratches are not directional with the slope of the land and cannot therefore have been formed by water...because water always flows down while the scratches are not in the downward direction of their immediate localities. They think they have us now.

Okay, but, immediately after the Flood, waters rushed downhill, in massive amounts, hundreds of miles wide, toward what are now ocean coasts, and therefore the water rolled debris along -- across the hills and valleys in both the uphill and downhill directions -- because the Flood water was deep enough at the time to cover the hills.

They have evidence of the Flood in all the fossils they find worldwide, but, with obstinate and rebellious hearts they deny God the Flood reality. For these types, a new form of global judgment is coming, this time by fire, for they will become as sinful as men were at the Flood. Liberals today are speedily working to become that sinful.

I'm not saying that all of what they call "scratches" were from debris rolled along by water. There are other explanations, for example, they are not scratches at all. I saying that all rock markings were from water propelling debris along. During the Flood, underwater debris was falling after being exploded upward from underwater volcanic vents. The debris (small, big and bigger) had momentum / motion capable of creating lines when falling upon the previously- freshly-laid sedimentation. These markings were then covered over by more sedimentation, but, later, the receding Flood waters (going back into the earth) came by and "unearthed" (eroded) sedimentation, exposing the markings (above) that the loons call "scratches" from ice sheets.

I didn't say that glacial flows don't exist. I'm saying that a continent-wide ice age in southerly latitudes did not exist i.e. no ice flows there. In the video's filming of a California valley, I did not see evidence of scratches from a moving ice sheet. The narrator told you that it was so, but he's fooling you as part of evolutionary indoctrination.

A valley filled with ice is bound not to flow because the randomly-shaped mountain sides, with jagged rocks, tend to lock the glacier in place. Not all ice sheets flow. The ice sheet we saw in the video was not encroaching against the jagged rocks of the valley, but was in a riverbed. Some of what they call glaciers today could be more like hardened snow (crackable) rather than solid ice, and these are the ones expected to flow best (while cracking) in spite of tooth-like shapes of mountain sides.

The narrator never mentions the Flood once, because in his time (lots of Christians) it was death to his theories. The subtle / unconscious implication of the video is that the Flood is not needed to explain geologic conditions. A gross repeat of this subliminal advertising produced our sinful generation. They then convinced my generation that we were entering another ice age to make us think that scientists generally all accepted the previous ice age. Low-lives, liars.

Where the video's late stages shows evidence of glacial-ice locations on the North-American map, the narrator failed to tell what the evidences were i.e. you're supposedly to brainlessly trust the science gurus.

My Physics Theories

Below is a video on the Hubble telescope's advances in cosmic knowledge, in which, right away, we hear about planets orbiting other stars, a claim for which there is no proof. When the narrator tells us this, it shows a planet before our sun, but doesn't tell the viewer that this is so. It misleads the viewer into thinking that it's a photo of a planet at another star. Just after the second minute arrives, you hear of tantalizing black holes, which are impossible to exist, and of course the "origins of the universe," which is an entire field of deception for which we pay mega-bucks as their victims. Cosmology today is an activity in anti-God baloney. At the 54th minute, we hear that the biggest hope of this telescope was to find evidence / details of the big bang that never took place, unless God happened to use something similar in the Creation.

As you can see, the telescope was disappointing with foggy pictures, but, we are supposed to believe, they sent a repair crew to it to fix the problem, and, voila, it was fixed to perfection. But knowing what I do about anti-Christians practicing deception as a rule, what about the proposal that they are faking images, merely showing us computer-enhanced fantasies? All they need to do is to control the room(s) that receives Hubble photos, and that's it. No one else has access. If you are of the opinion that this proposal is ridiculous, you don't yet know the anti-Christs. They are on a mission to kill God in our world, and that's all that matters to them. They devise ways in conspiracies to deceive to push that agenda. My hope is that whistle-blowers will blow the lid off of this field's deception, soon. For the moment, experts in the field are hard-pressed not to buck against the many claims from Hubble's pictures. Who in this field would, for example, come out to say that Hubble photos are faked? How would they prove it? They don't have their own telescopes capable of proving it.

What's needed is a spy bug in their photo-reception rooms. We would then learn EVERYTHING that they do, and the reasons too. Wouldn't you like to know how they come to their decisions when releasing information to the public? This is the same breed exactly as Democrat politicians, given to abusing the public with false imagery. The same who advance / embrace evolution gravitated to the Democrat party's immorality programs.

A black hole is impossible because light is not attracted to gravity. Light is a particle causing a wave through a wave medium (the solar-wind electrons) and cannot therefore be attracted by gravity (because a wave is not a particle). Only particles can be attracted by gravity. Therefore, these fools created an incomprehensible / indescribable wave-particle to explain light because they badly needed the photon light particle. If you can understand what a wave-particle is, you're a nutcracker.

If you can't understand why a photon is impossible, you don't deserve to be a physicist, yet the "best" physicists in this world virtually all believe in photons...just as they believe that electrons whirl around protonic cores zillions of times per second. If you don't understand why there cannot be orbits at zillions of revolutions per second, you don't deserve to be a physicist. You're a nut.

Nutty beliefs are due to their explanations of a Godless creation from the big bang. Get with it. Be wise. The orbiting electron and the photon came into existence, as theories, at the same time that evolution was paving a road into our textbooks...because evolutionists were infiltrating science departments. Be smart, understand what happened. They aligned physics with their evolutionary needs.

They realized that people would consider then more nuts if they said that the big bang produced roughly 118 different kinds of protonic cores, one kind each for the 118 elements now known. In other words, an explosion creating countless particles all exactly the same to become the oxygen proton, and meanwhile the same explosion creating countless particles all exactly identical to become the carbon proton, etc., etc., sounds impossible. How would the big bang know to make them identical, and how did it make them identical?? So, the early goons settled on just protons and electrons: the big bang made only protons all exactly alike, and all electrons exactly alike, though even this is ridiculous to swallow, but be my guest if you're that stupid.

With all protons exactly alike, they devised a plot to teach us that each of the different atoms, making up the different elements, had a different number of protons at their cores. The distinguishing factor of atoms is merely in the number of protons that each one is made of. They then invented (it's not provable) a superglue ("Strong Nuclear Force," they called it) at the center of each atom in order to keep the proton cluster together (as a unit) against the natural inter-repulsion forces that protons possess. Yes, it's impossible to form a proton cluster, unless you're a nut willing to violate the laws of physics because you think it makes the big bang more palatable to the masses you're seeking to deceive...because you don't want them to believe in God, because, if they do, they will turn your society into a Christian one, and you hate Christ so much you would rather lie to them and send them to hell with you. Judgment cometh.

Okay, so what they did then was to assign each of the protons, of protonic cores, one electron each. Very neat and tidy and totally inexplicable, but they're fooling you, so they had best make it sound as logical as possible. And to explain why an atom with 16 protons had 16 electrons orbiting around it, they assigned the electron exactly as much negative charge as protons have positive charge, because you would swallow it more readily if it sounds logical. But, stupids, there is no reason that there needs to be one orbiting body per one proton in the core. You can put as many orbiting bodies as you like above the earth, so why shouldn't the same apply to protonic cores? You can bet that these goons had good reasons of their own to limit atoms with one electron per proton.

Okay, so they realized that the electron had to be much smaller than a proton, but this is death to their orbit theory even worse than if the electron was larger than a proton. For example, in order to make the moon orbit the earth a zillion times per second, the moon would need to be much heavier i.e. bigger. That's right. If you want to speed up the moon in orbit, it needs to be heavier or it will spiral out of orbit. But they have the opposite situation, weeny electrons at zillions of revolutions per, not hour, note minute, but second! Buffoons rule the scientific establishment, and even Creationists don't know enough, or are too afraid, to rebut these sorts of theories, how can this be???

So, maybe now you can come to terms with why there cannot be orbiting electrons. But there are other reasons too, such as there's no satellite experts down in the atom to assure that every electron begins to circle the protonic core at just the right angle and speed to form an orbit. That's right, these clowns expect you to believe that electrons exit and re-enter orbits as though orbit formation were the vast likelihood instead of the vast unlikelihood. Please, you can't be so stupid and think of yourself as a physics experts simultaneously. Give your head a shake.

There you go, absolute proof that they have been lying to us for over a century and counting. Why wouldn't they be lying today with a world more prone to anti-Christ "principles" than a century ago? They have the computer now to assist them in their lies by false imagery. Go for it, make God's Day.

In order to pass off their big bang, they needed a huge universe, and I suspect very much that they deliberately misinterpreted distant and exploded stars in our own galaxy as other galaxies. Take a look at the photos of exploded stars at google's "supernova photos" search results, and you can see one offering that looks just like a spiral galaxy. The others don't look very much like what they pass off as galaxies probably by design, because they don't want us to realize that galaxies are just exploded stars. I sense a trick. Galaxies allow them to increase the size of the universe wildly.

To help make their universe seem extremely large, they needed a light year to be extremely huge in our eyes, but extremely small on the scale of the universe. One way to accomplish this is to announce that light is an extremely-fast particle. Yup, that's right, this is their reason for inventing the photon. And on top of this they announce that the big bang was so many billions of years ago to that the universe now is so many billions of light years across. The bigger the light year, the bigger across we imagine the universe, playing right into their hands to make the earth seem unimportant to Creation, contrary to what Creationist teach, that the earth is central to Creation. That's part of their game, and why they keep announcing the faked findings of other suns with planets. I don't believe them for a second on those finds. I know them. I know how they think and how they deceive. Creationists offer these goons way-too much respect, and it's about time they start calling them goons, clowns, deceivers, devil's workers...the truth. Shame on Creationists for respecting them as men of honor and honesty, playing right into their hands.

Let me explain a light wave if you have trouble with it. The solar system is filled with solar electrons. The sun (and stars) cause a release of atomic electrons (probably at the core) that push into the body of adjacent electrons above them, the ones already escaped. The push is always outward toward space because the body of freed electrons first fills the core, and after that the electrons have nowhere else to push but up in all directions. In the sun's atmosphere, the push from below pushes electrons already accumulated in the atmosphere, forming a wave of energy through atmospheric electrons and out into space similar to the push that creates a wave of water. There can be no argument with this picture from the baboons of science because electrons do flow in space, and because they are defacto in contact with one another through their inter-repulsion.

So, a push on one electron in space is a push on all i.e. the energy flows through this medium, just as a push on one water molecule pushes water molecules to its sides to cause a wave. Yet you have never heard this before that energy flows through the solar wind. WHY NOT? Are the baboons too daft to realize it? No, but they are evil and are withholding this from you because it looks too much like a light wave.

If you throw a rock into a river where the speed of riverflow downstream is faster than the speed of the water wave formed by the rock's push, no wave will form downstream. So, the push of ejected electrons into the wave medium at the sun needs to be faster than the speed of the solar wind moving space-ward. If it's not, a black sunspot is created at the sun because no light wave goes out. There is only one way to create the blackness of a sunspot: when solar material has first exploded upward, it then falls down (away from earth) faster than the push of a light wave toward the earth. This is so easy; why haven't the experts figured it out? They have figured it out, but they hide it from us because they reject the light wave.

When solar material explodes upward, toward earth, the speed of ejected electrons becomes unusually fast, resulting in extra energy to earth...which is what they tell us during sunspot activity. But the clowns view solar energy as an incomprehensible wave-particle to hide the fact that it transfers in a wave-normal way though the solar wind. Throw the bums in jail.

Does any expert in physics really believe that there's a force that can push a particle at the speed of 186,000 miles per second? Only a particle traveling faster than that can propel a photon at that speed, by striking it. You need to ask: what possibly made the photon go that fast? You shouldn't just take a morality moron's word on it. The evolutionist is a chief morality moron; it's the reason he developed evolution. He's a wicked soul. The imagination is the limit when it comes to fake science. How possibly could all photons in all the universe be traveling at the same super-super speed? You really need to be a nut if you so much as try to answer the question. Logic should tell you right away that particles cannot all travel at the same speed all the time. It's your glaring sign that they lie about photons.

Light-wave speed, by the way, depends on the density of the light-wave medium. Light DOES NOT always travel at the same speed. It does on earth, because the wave medium is always at the same density here, more or less.

Light strikes objects. Every particle or object will slow down that strikes a material moving slower than itself. With repeated strikes, objects come to rest when they have transferred all of their kinetic energy to things they collide with. Not so in the imaginations of the stupids. They teach that a photon never slows down. They can readily see that this is a wrong teaching, but instead of going back and correcting things, they plow forward with lies into your minds and those of your children. Throw the bums in jail.

We could maybe sympathize with those who hold to the photon if there were no other explanation, but they themselves know that solar-wind electrons exist. It's a ready-made and constant light-wave medium so long as the sun explodes forth electrons. In this one thing alone we can learn that light is a wave produced by the emission of electrons into an electron medium. This is proven where it's known that electrons are emitted from the filament of a light bulb. Yes, the light-wave medium is not only within the bulb, but in the air between the bulb and your eyes. Solar wind electrons fill our earth's atmosphere, and if goons try to tell you otherwise (they do), they are lying. It's not true that earth's radiation belts keep the solar wind from entering earth's atmosphere, but this is what they prefer for you to believe.

Therefore, physics departments are guilty of lying to us while knowing what the realities are. I'm not the first to realize the true light-wave medium. Surely, they stumbled easily upon this reality, BUT REJECTED IT for the purposes of indoctrination. In the same way that you see Democrats and deep-staters fabricating ridiculous arguments against obvious realities in the Trump camp, ditto for evolutionists. They are the same breed of baboons.

What could be the origins of photons inside the sun? Is there a photon-making machine in there? They can't come to the sun from other stars, can they? No, for the accumulated brightness of all stars combined is as nothing when compared to the brightness of solar light. Therefore, do solar atoms have storehouses full of photons? How can atoms store photons that are always moving at 186,000 mps? Don't worry, they'll think of something, and feed it to you to. It should be your job to spit it out and call them out for nonsense. Give the evolutionist his deserved backlashing today.

I can easily explain how the sun has its electron-wind source: in every solar atom. Atoms are stacked with captured electrons, a lot more than they have in their atomic model. It's not one electron per proton, a very stupid idea. If electrons freed from solar atoms are attracted back to atoms, the electrons cannot flow into space to create the solar wind. But destroy the proton (each atom has only one proton, each proton different per element), and electrons come flying out explosively from the proton's grasp. What do you think can destroy a proton?

There cannot be light from the sun if protons are not crippled partially, or wholly destroyed. This is so easy, how did they miss it? They didn't miss it. They know/knew about it, but they keep/kept it to themselves. Can you come up with a good reason that they should deny the destruction of the proton?

Atomic electrons do not orbit; they can spiral around the proton, but not in a true orbit, and only if they are jolted, for they come to rest when not jolted. They are held to the proton as with an invisible string, the protonic attraction. The outer layers of electrons hover above the proton; no outer electron is in contact with another electron because they all the repel one another while held to the proton's region. If electrons don't hover at the perimeters of atoms, there can be no atomic bonding i.e. no liquids or solids. Or, if atoms were hard, solid walls at their perimeters, they could not bond. They need to merge with one another, and for this the outer electrons must not be in contact.

Electrons can easily jostle within their atomic spheres, or escape the atom, when atoms are struck by a light wave or jolted by other atoms. When a normal (not crippled) atom loses electrons, it can regain them from its near environment, for the sun assures that all of space on earth and in the solar system is filled with freed electrons. This is so easy. Knock some iron filings off of a magnet fully loaded with them, but if there are other filings nearby, the magnet can attract them to become fully-loaded again. Physicists understand this, but I'm not sure that they are prone to informing you that, when objects are rubbed to form an electromagnetic charge within them, it's because electrons in the air are either being attracted to or repelled from the rubbed object.

If protons are destroyed, all electrons come flying out explosively. That's the true definition of nuclear energy. All that's needed are the electrons, but they prefer that a proton can never be destroyed...because, if it could, the big bang (the most-powerful force of all in their science dogma) would have destroyed protons rather than creating them. Now you know the real reason that they imagine indestructible protons. And they think that the big bang made all protons alike because they are the smallest indestructible fraction of matter.

They say that it's only logical to conceive of a basement particle that cannot be divided any smaller. Well, for me, that's not so easy or logical. I'd say that, the smaller the particle, the easier to squish it flat with a hammer. In their minds, a proton is harder than steel, harder than the force of the big bang itself. Can you really conceive of such a thing? Are you nuts? Come to your senses, it'll be alright if you violate these clowns. Throw the bums in jail.

The only reason that Einstein assigned his photon zero mass is that a particle having a velocity of 186,000 mph will pierce your body if it had mass. In other words, rather than see the nonsense in the photon's super-super velocity, he did the dopey thing by inventing a particle with zero mass. Others might give it a slight mass to make you swallow the theory a little easier, but, please, for your own sake, don't be their dope. There is no photon. Light waves alone there must be.

Where do solar photons come from? They say:
"The energy produced by nuclear fusion is conveyed from the heart of the Sun by light particles and heat, called photons. When merging two protons in a nucleus of deuterium [hydrogen] to create a helium nucleus, photons are released. This particle, created in the solar core, transmits the light beam to Earth."

Achem, but where did the photons come from? Out of nothing? But of course, like in a cartoon or a fantasy show. They even invent the erroneous concept that hydrogen atoms can be merged to form a helium atom. It's not true at all, but they devised fake or trick experiments to make us believe that all atoms are multiple hydrogen atoms fused together.

We can ask: is fusion taking place in the filament of a light bulb? No. Then where do those filament photons come from? Are they held in the pockets or duffle bags of filament electrons until someone turns on the light switch? How do electrons hold photons that can never slow down? Ahh, they just make electrons orbit at or near the speed of light, and the photon piggy-backs on their shoulders. Now you know why they have electrons orbiting zillions of times per second round a protonic core. Or, one ridiculous mistake leads to another. Yes, in their fantasies, electrons catch, and then release, photons. They are absolutely nuts. Instead of seeing a fatal crash of a photon into an electron, with the latter being knocked out of orbit, they see a smooth baseball game. The electron comes equipped with a baseball glove and a pitcher's arm. Where does the electron keep the photon while riding along with it? How can the photon, coming in on a straight line, start circling the proton along with the electron? Is this not the nuttiest thing you have ever heard?

Are the great scientists really this reckless with light physics because they're too dumb to figure out the realities, or are they teaching folly because they play to the devil's programs? One doesn't need to know, or speak to, the devil to be affected by his demons. All one needs to do, to be infested in their brains with demonic impulses, is to despise Jesus to the point of wishing to eradicate him from existence. To these types go seven times the demons, we could say.

Is fusion taking place in a firefly? Is there no other explanation for light formation? I'm going to guess that the weight of solar material crushes protons to the point that their electrons escape permanently. They force their way under inter-repulsion to the solar surface, then away as solar wind. At least you can see that I'm not making light from pure scratch.

Let's now tackle how the sun came together as a body of many atoms, if it did so from the big bang. The latter sent material flying further apart with time, because all particles flying away from a sphere move further apart. An explosion from a single point is from a sphere. Physicists tell us that particles flying through nothing can never slow down, and I'll agree. So, the big bang is expected to produce single particles that can never come together to form stars, because after a million years alone, all particles are an enormous distance from one another. Big problem there.

Enter Newton. He created or advanced the erroneous idea that every atom has gravity attracting all other atoms. The evolutionist might now have an opening to make us believe that atoms flying outward from the big bang could possibly attract one another to form small, lightless globs...and finally whole, shining stars. But wait. Their big bang produced, not atoms, but protons and electrons. We first need to address how protons, flying along at vast distances from electrons, come to capture electrons. This problem is exactly as large as their vast size of their proto-universe. The faster they fly in near-parallel directions, the less inclined they can alter course (from a straight line) from merely the attraction force of a wee-wee proton way yonder in the distance, say a hundred miles away (that's far enough to make the point).

Not even Newton's gravity can solve this problem, even if true that every protonic core possesses a so-called graviton particle (the origin of gravity force, laughable).

Well, tantalizers and fantasizers can think of something. For example, the particles were not going out in straight lines, the obvious fix. So, the big bang sent particles out as curve balls. Protons on curved paths eventually came close enough to an electron to attract and capture it. One proton and one electron happens to be the evolutionist's erroneous definition of a hydrogen atom, and they say that stars are mostly hydrogen. The evolutionist's atomic model is thereby just dandy for his big-bang theory; how did that come about? By pre-arrangement. They first ask what's needed for cosmic evolution, and they then provide it, much like fake news.

We can now see why they opted to model all atoms as a combination of hydrogen atoms. Oxygen, with 16 protons and 16 electrons, is in very real "fact" 16 hydrogen atoms, in their scheme, stuck (or fused) together. Where does the glue come from when they try to fuse H atoms together? Just invent it, man, and teach her for a fact. That's what they do.

So, it works out better for their evolution of the universe if the big bang spit out only one kind of proton. For if the big bang spit out a hundred-or-so different types of protons, we'd expect more material flying through space than stars, but that material doesn't exist. So, they naturally opted for one proton to attract just one electron (seeing how unlikely it was to attract just one) to form the H atom, the building blocks of stars. Now you know why they built their atoms in this way, on behalf of making the big-bang more viable / palatable to their/our senses.

If some H-atoms were curving along as they flew through space, they maybe could come together as two atoms, then three, and finally a whole-blown star. But wait. Gas atoms repel one another, and will therefore not come together even if they come near to one another. Big problem there, but evolutionists were up for the task: just deceive the whole world into believing at all gas atoms attract one another. But wait, you can't do that. The tires of my car don't look like balloons because air atoms attract one another, but because air atoms repel one another. They wanted no part of inter-repelling gas atoms, and now you know why: they needed to form H-atoms out of big-bang debris.

To explain why air atoms in the tire do not become a liquid, if indeed air atoms attract one another, they devised ever-moving atoms (the kinetic theory). The air atoms in my tires, they say, are moving in straight lines at high speeds while attracting one another. They pass one another so fast, or collide so hard, that they won't bond as liquid molecules. That's what they say. And they also say that atoms are not under the regular laws of physics wherein colliding objects slow down per collision. In their fantasies, a body of colliding atoms as a whole doesn't slow down; if one atom in the tire slows down in an atomic collision, the one it collided with, they say, picks up speed by an equal amount.

But reality demands energy losses at collisions; some or all of the energy in both colliding objects will be used up, when transferring from one to the other, to result in less total velocity between the two objects. That's the law, blow the whistle.

How did stars form when the big bang sent particles flying a lot faster than they think the atoms fly in my tires? Well, they'll say, hydrogen atoms on slightly-curved paths can arrive alongside one another, real close, and they will not be moving relative to one another because they are at the same velocity in the same basic direction. Okay, let's give them that. But I cannot give them their theory that atoms attract one another because I would then be violating the law. By their own admission, gas (or individual) atoms cannot be under inter-attraction unless they race around forever without losing energy. As atoms MUST lose energy when colliding, it's just plain and simple that gas atoms inter-repel. In that case, even if two or more hydrogen atoms come near enough to attract into a liquid droplet (a-star-is-born scenario), they won't attract. Big problem there. There's only two choices: gas atoms either attract or repel, and science has been dishonest with us in reporting which of the two is correct.

See if you can find an article telling of the step-by-step formation of a star from outgoing big-bang material. It won't be easy to find. They don't want you to know they don't have it all figured out. Beware when they take big steps ignoring the impossible small steps. Start with protons and electrons flying outward from the pinpoint. Or better yet, don't bother, but give glory to God.

We can entertain inter-attracting atoms. In the big-bang scenario, two hydrogen atoms can then come alongside one another and bond into a hydrogen liquid, and so on, into a proto-star blob, except that hydrogen atoms don't stick together as liquid unless they are at very cold temperatures. As soon as a proto-star blob starts to form heat, back to gas particles this blob returns i.e. the blob is destroyed. It forces the baboons to scratch their heads and monkey around on paper to deceive us with trick pictures. Trick pictures that leave out key facts are their specialty.

They wrongly say that heat is the motion of atoms; the faster atoms collide or jiggle with one another, the hotter they are. Gas atoms collide, and liquid-state atoms jiggle with one another while bonded. Okay, so just about as soon as liquid hydrogen atoms start to jiggle, at near absolute-zero temperature, they separate into individual gas atoms. How then can a star form? Uh, well I think they skip this step and hope you don't think of it. They start with the picture of a big gaseous cloud already formed, that collapses under gravity force. That is, when gravity sets in due to a great accumulation of H-atoms, the gas becomes the proto-star, liquid-like blob. They don't show the steps that create the great accumulation of H-atoms. After the collapse, it's not a true liquid, but gravity pulls the hot atoms close enough together to become like a liquid. They are sure to leave high heat in their picture because, after all, they are trying to build a sun.

Doesn't a gas spread out? Yup. So if it takes millions of years for a strong gravity to form at the center (core) of a gas, won't all the gas spread out by then into a thin entity unable to form a strong gravity? A strong gravity source, as they see it, needs a core dense in atoms, but gases from the big bang can't have such a thing, except in the drawings of dishonest evolutionist radicals. A step-by-step formation of the gas from big-bang particles doesn't allow a gas having a core denser than the gas' perimeter. It's not as though the big bang is able to inject a pre-formed large gas at a certain point in space with a dense / denser core.

Let's imagine atoms forming by some miracle into a large accumulation of gas atoms that don't spread out. Let's assume that the gas has no heat by which to spread out. That is, the atoms don't collide and therefore don't spread out (they define a gas spreading out via gas-atom collisions). Additional atoms arriving to this gas can join it more likely at it's perimeter than at its core. There's no reason to predict a dense core. But, alas, every atom added to the gas must increase the gas' temperature because every atom added comes in and shares some of its kinetic energy. The gas will therefore spread out as other atoms come in (from where do they come?), and nothing resembling a dense gravity core can form. In their scheme, the proto-star can't produce star heat (photons) unless there is core gravity first.

The hotter the proto-star becomes (regardless of the heat source), the more the gaseous situation causes the fly-away power of atoms to become stronger than any pull of gravity on the fly-away atoms. The earth's gravity is incapable of pulling a hydrogen gas to itself as it rises in air. It goes up even at the low atmospheric temperature of frozen water. Unless gravity force is stronger on the atoms than the fly-away power, the atoms will fly away with nothing to stop them. The further they get from gravity, the weaker the latter upon them. Why am I even here wasting my time and yours?

Here's a problem. It's got to do with the initial bang. It's already a difficulty of a gigantic order to argue that all of the material in the universe came forth from a pin-point in proto-space, but to say that the material poured out of this spot for a length of time, as opposed to coming out in an instant, is really getting laughable. Does the pin-point have garage or a warehouse with an open window from which the universe poured out?

My point is, the big bang has been portrayed as an explosion in an instant of time, not a forceful pouring out over time like when someone turns on a tap to let water out the hose. So, if material pops out of the pin-point in an instant, the universe should look like the walls of a balloon getting ever larger. And from that situation we can say that all particles are moving at the same speed. What's wrong with that? Well, there's no atoms behind or in front of the balloon walls so that any proto-star can build in size. Plus, if all atoms have exploded at the same speed, there will be no atoms catching up, or slowing down, in order to be injected into a proto-star, even if one did form.

If the material at the proto-star's backside (closer to the pin-point) is not able to catch up to the proto-star, because that material is moving at the same speed, how can it grow the initial blob or gas? And if the material to the front (further from the pin-point) is moving at the same speed, how can the blob or gas catch up to it in order to increase its density / size?

There's clearly only one solution: the big-bang fart theory. Successive explosions, each fart stronger than the last so that material from the back side (no pun intended) always catches up to material to its front. I should get a prize for this. You got a better theory? What else do big-bang pinpoints in proto-space do? Of course they fart. With more gusto after the first one. Each fart a distinct universe. It's like they blow smoke rings. Talking about gas. Next up for evolutionists: the flatulence-earth theory.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, atheist, said that physics offers many reasons as to why stars can never form. It sounds as though any one scenario seeking to solve the problem gives rise to a fatal problem everytime. There's just no way to make a star by itself from the big bang, but this doesn't stop the radical evolutionists from claiming otherwise in simpleton lies. If you get past the first parts of the Creationist video below, you'll get to some good quotes on the big-bang hypocrites running modern science:

Here's a typical big-bang bozo and his trick photography to engrain in our heads what they wish:

Oh, wow, space is now expanding, and that proves the big bang. But wait. Stars repel one another, and that too can explain an expanding universe. Yes, stars shoot electrons at one another, predicting their pushing each other apart. But the bozos, who have already realized this truth, don't share it with you when presenting the expanding universe. Why not? Because they are clowns dancing to satanic flutes.

I can prove that there are electrons between the stars and our earth: because we can see stars. We could not see them unless the electron wave-medium existed between stars and our eyes. How simple and logical is that? So much for his absolute proof of a big-bang.

The wizard in the video goes on to say that, because the universe is now expanding, it was ever-smaller as we go back in time. Bonk, wrong. There is no necessity to see the universe ever-smaller to the point of a pinpoint in space. He has "forgotten" that God could have created the universe already large, and that the stars could thereafter have started to sail from one another. Why does this wizard not permit a Creator into his cosmic scheme? It's a possibility too, after all.

As you can see, he does not present the step-by-step formation of a star from the big bang. Instead, he goes one to give a very weak presentation of "microwave radiation," which to me sounds like contrived trash. I know these boys, how they fabricate their needs with things you and I cannot disprove.

At the approach to the 7th minute, he claims, on behalf of the cosmology department for which he's the narrator, that the big bang was instantly hotter than anything ever before. But wait, according to their own theory, there can be no heat unless particles are colliding. And if they are colliding at the first seconds of the big bang, they can't do anything to one another but flatten / destroy one another, or, at best, bounce off of one another. Yet this clown is telling us that, due to the great heat, new material was "baked" into just the particles they need. Hee-hee, nice try, straight face. Why should we believe your crock-pot theory? You're a nut just for presenting it with a straight face. How can violent particle collisions be deemed a nice little over for baking particles? It's contradictory. You're just making it up, aren't you?

I'm sure you'll agree that this narrator didn't talk the talk that the average man can grasp. It's science wizardry from the wizards. None of us can test their claims / results / opinions / conclusions from their particle accelerators and colliders, which is why I ignore this entire field of "science" (because we know their spin of lies). Just so you realize the inventive wizardry even more, see the second, follow-up video:

The video shows you how insane big-bangers have become. If you can't understand why it's insane, there's no hope for you. You've yet got to learn that scientists are not really this intelligent that they should know as a fact what the universe looked like in the first 20 minutes. If they claim to know, just realize that they're nut bars. It's all you need to know. They pretend to be this intelligent in order to fool you. The presentations above seem primarily to convince you that scientists are miles higher than your intelligence level. That too is a big part of their bag of tricks. You're not supposed to understand what the narrator is saying, but rather you're to feel very small before those for whom he speaks. The big-bang process has been altered many times by many thinkers, and will continue to change, not because the backers are super-intelligent. They keep getting it wrong. The presentation above is an aberration. Throw the bums in jail.

Hubble discovered the red shift of stars, the basis of the expanding universe because he assumed that starlight refracting toward the red end of the spectrum (when passed through a prism or its equivalent) was to be interpreted as weaker light, due to stars moving away from the prism (or away from earth). In order to test this theory, one first needs to know why light refracts in a prism, or what the details are behind it, but I don't think these things are known correctly. Probably, the evolutionists have decided on an explanation that helps their evolution, or, at least, doesn't harm it.

If Hubble's interpretation is correct, then stars are moving away from earth SLOWLY...much slower than the material of a sunspot falls to the sun. That's right, for while the sunspot material is black, without light at all coming toward earth, the stars that Hubble tested for red shift are visible, sending light to earth. If Hubble's interpretation is correct, the red shift probably indicates only a small fraction of the speed of falling sunspot material. It could mean that the rate of the universe's expansion is limited to something far less than the demonic (unreasonable, Hell-bent) evolutionist desires. It gets worse for the goons because red shift also claims to measure the speeds of galaxies (from earth). Here's a basic-level video on red shift:

My question is: how do they know that the light has shifted at all, either toward the red or blue? In order to know such a thing, wouldn't they first need to find a star that isn't moving at all away, and then compare that star's spectrum with that of other stars? How could they know of such a star not moving away from us? Do they use the spectrum of our sun? Is that allowed? Is it safe for the experiment? I regret that I'm not studied up on this issue; I don't even know what their spectral lines are due to. But I would like to say that there are two ways to describe red shift: 1) the spectral lines shift toward the red; 2) the red side shifts toward the spectral lines. Does it matter which of the two we go by? I haven't a clue.

They say that stars further away have more red shift (i.e. moving faster), but don't be so quick to believe it, because they became guilty of deliberate (i.e. deceptive) circular reasoning. They once said that the furthest stars have the most red-shift, and later said that the most red-shift indicates the furthest stars. But they never did prove that the furthest stars were the furthest stars, nor can they if they are misinterpreting red-shift.

Just the same, however wrong they are about red-shift interpretations, there is logic in the furthest stars moving the fastest, though the reason for the expansion is, of course, not the big bang.

Speaking on Hubble's experiments, NASA said: "This redshift appeared to be larger for faint, presumably further, galaxies. Hence, the farther a galaxy, the faster it is receding from Earth." Well, fainter stars / galaxies / light bulbs are not necessarily further, everyone knows that. But, Hubble's experiments were a century ago, and by now we can guess that scientists have adopted the scheme wherein galaxies with more red shift are listed as the furthest, fastest ones because their key theories are expressly developed to become "facts" over time, everyone knows that.

In my much-better view (I don't have the big bang, and they sorrily do), stars generally (not all) move away from one another because they are shooting material at one another. Where the materials of two stars collide, the effect will be push-back on both stars, forcing them further apart...which may in the meantime push one or both stars closer to others stars. If you upon a water raft spray a fire (big) hose at someone upon a raft spraying a big hose at you, the two rafts will drift apart when the two water spays make contact. Ditto with stars.

If the two guys on two rafts shoot bullets at one another, and the bullets all collided, the rafts would not move apart because the bullets are not interconnected with one another as are the molecules of a spray of water. In outer space, all electrons are in inter-contact by their repulsion forces. That's why stars are predicted to move apart. The front/leading edge of a stellar wind is like a wall, we could say, and when two such walls collide while the spraying of electrons continues from both stars, the stars move away from the place where the walls collide.

As you saw in the video above, the frequency of starlight weakens (less frequent) as the star moves away. I accept that statement. But the spectrum of the star only reveals that the light has less frequency, not that the star is moving away. An alternative explanation for lower frequency is that the star is simply weaker in light than others, explaining why dimmer stars / galaxies exhibited the most red-side spectrum. There are cosmologists who do believe that red-shift is intrinsic to the star material, not it's velocity. The term "shift" may be the goon's key deception. In reality, there may be no shift, just stronger and weaker starlight. "Shift" is an acceptable term only when there is standard to go by. Who makes the standard, and how? Why should starlight be compared to that standard? See "debunking redshift" at google.

The goons must realize that this alternative explanation has merit, but, if they do, they are loath to share it with us in red-shift articles (made for the public) because they are in love with an expanding universe for proof of the big bang. Desperadoes. So wrongly have they taken red-shift science that they claim the speed of "quasars" (these are crazily interpreted) to be as much as 90-percent the speed of light, moving away from us. Quasars (just normal stellar blobs / galaxies) are therefore defined as extremely bright in comparison to galaxies just because the telescope can see quasars while they are thought to be so very, very far away due to their high red shifts. In other words, they have badly abused red-shift for pushing their big-bang universe like a stoner stoned out of his mind...and seeing hallucinations.

Do you want to hear a nutcase: "The galaxies are moving away from Earth because the fabric of space itself is expanding." "The fabric of space? How laughable. Space is defined as nothingness. How dare do these crackers re-define it. Nothingness cannot be created because there is nothing to create, yet they think space was created with the big bang. You really are being made a fool if you hearken to these buffoons. If you are able to imagine space as a fabric, or a creation, it's no longer space. They are trying to convince us that space has a dark matter throughout that they cannot prove the existence of, though they think they already have proven it. We should be very suspicious about their plans for dark matter, but, already, they use it to explain problems with a big-bang scenario.

Someone writes: "The vacuum energy has an effective negative mass, and thus causes gravity to repel rather than attract." Boy, that sounds just like the light-wave medium that is nothing more that the solar / stellar winds filling the universe. If "negative mass" doesn't mean zero mass, then why bother using such a phrase? Is it secret code for something? Only a nut would try to figure out what negative mass is if its less than zero. There is no such thing as less-than-zero mass, get a grip of yourselves. "If "negative mass" means "opposite of mass," get a double grip of yourselves.

I don't care what anyone thinks of me for my claim that I've discovered the correct definition of gravity. I will be proven right, and, no, I am not nutty. Gravity is the negative force (or charge) of free electrons in a planetary / stellar body. Gravity is therefore a negatively-charged force that attracts all atoms but repels electrons. Therefore, all cosmic electrons are weightless because they are repelled by gravity (more reason for stars moving away from one another).

Let's re-quote: "The vacuum energy has an effective negative mass, and thus causes GRAVITY TO REPEL rather than attract." I'm sure it's saying that gravity repels the vacuum energy (or the particles thereof). All we now need to do is translate "negative mass" as "weightless," and voila! They have just described the electron ether that Einstein rejected! Skunks. Even while denying the ether, there it is in what they call, vacuum energy. They have apparently come around, almost, to their senses. Discard the photon, and adopt this vacuum energy as the light-wave medium, and things will go much better for science.

If the vacuum energy has no mass, how can it have energy? It can't. Only a quantum nut would devise energy apart from mass. "Vacuum energy" is much better phrased, "vacuum particles," and should be defined as a weightless, gas-like mesh. A bird could not flap wings and fly in this weightless mesh / gas. It's there, but it can't be felt. Unless a gas is held down to the ground by gravity, a creature / object moves through it as if it were not there. It provides zero or near-zero resistance to motion. Solar electrons fill our atmosphere, I'm not making a mistake.

The reason that gravity attracts all atoms is that it repels some electrons off of every atom (and others also to its top side), thus making every atom (especially the bottoms of atoms) positively charged toward the gravity-source electrons. Negative attracts positive, we all know that.

I'm reading: "...if a negative mass was pushed, it would accelerate towards you rather than away from you. Negative masses are not a new idea in cosmology." No, and the reason it's not a new idea is that physicists have for a long time been absolutely bonkers.

I've just seen a video telling that a catholic priest invented the big bang, possibly from his personal concept of God making it, but that Hubble came along with red shift a couple of years later and got the big-bang ball rolling in his field of study. To make this theory more credible, they have locked into a date, 13.77 billion years ago, not 10, 12 or 15, but 13.77, as though they really did their homework to arrive to a fractionalized number. And as they have schemed this scheme to make many others agree with the 13.77, it makes it appear that they really did their homework. But if you have a normal-working Christian mind that understands the evil of the human heart, you realize right away that 13.77 is wrong?

You can profane that number all you want, and you will turn out correct, because that number is the part of the screwball EGO of evolutionist quacks. You know you can count on their feigning science to arrive to such a number. They use red shift interpretations, not just the main one, to arrive to 13.8. They think they know the exact speeds of all the telescopically-visible stars, their distances from the big-bang point, and even the mass of the universe. Is that not one big fat EGO? With this information, they are stupid enough to tell the world what happened in the first second of the big bang. Is that not suicidal quackery? Of course it is. They play games with their own minds thinking they have a real grasp on the entire process to the modern shape of the universe, because they think that you will believe them if only they appear super-intelligent and in agreement with one another. But the Internet is their implosion because people can share how they feel about these screwballs.

Every discussion on the problems of the big bang introduces more nut-bar ideas as though the people dealing with the big bang are nut bars through and through. How can that be? Easy: by delving into these problems, they evolve into nut bars. So, stay away from it lest you begin to see the logic in a nut-bar idea. Once you've done that, there may be no return for you. Once you begin to think that you have the superior brain for understanding a nut bar idea, your ego will INFLATE unjustifiably. Therein is the real big-bang explosion.

They can't keep the big bang simple because it doesn't work to produce stars, and so they need to develop nut-bar concepts to make it work. I think I saw a video admitting the problem of galaxies not being far enough apart today...even though they have greatly exaggerated (or miscalculated) the distances between galaxies. If one has an explosion at a pinpoint, particles flying outward in all direction can be estimated to be at certain distances apart after so many miles outward. But galaxies too heavy in mass and/or not far enough apart from one another for the calculated distances they're at from the big-bang spot. It figures...because they haven't got the right distance, mass or time numbers anywhere. They are in folly all around because they have made mere theories into facts due to rushing their concepts due to their need to kill God in society as fast as possible. Once you understand the baseline of the establishment's leaders, the rush to kill God using "science," then you will know them.

I was driving through Kansas en route to visiting the Grand Canyon for the first time when it dawned on me (because I was trying to figure out a science problem as I drove) that heat particles are driven upward by gravity. This struck me after realizing that the kinetic theory of heat, claimed as fact by the establishment, was not the correct view. The only alternative is that heat is a material, and of course it suggests heat particles. So, knowing that heat rises everywhere (it was a hot, blue-sky day in Kansas), it really wasn't a very fantastic discovery to realize that gravity causes heat particles to rise, but I was celebrating the idea due to it's perfect logic...because I didn't at all mind violating what the science buffoons thought of things.

From that day's discovery came the realization, later, that gravity is made of electrons, and that heat particles are themselves electrons filling the air. I still hadn't realized that these were solar-wind electrons until reading that NASA discovered electrons in the solar wind in the 1950s. But of course: the sun packs our earth with electrons, this is so easy, proving that the buffoons have been knowingly lying to us. The earth can't get out of the way of solar-wind electrons. This is so easy, no screwball math needed, no screwball inventions wanted, no screwball jargon necessary.

Once one realizes that free electrons are heat particles, it's off to the races for additional, easy discoveries. The density of free electrons (as opposed to captured ones in atoms) becomes the definition of temperature, and gravity becomes defined as the heat sources (free electrons, yup) in planetary cores.

Wherever their is the emission of light, there is heat, because both are due to freed electrons. Compared to what the establishment has created in quantum physics, what I've just shared is super-simple, super-logical. I have yet to find any reasons making these claims impossible or even difficult. The only way one can shoot these ideas down is through the "facts" of the establishment, but one cannot justify using those things because they are erroneous. You need to start from scratch and ignore their atomic-model theories, for the latter rarely come close to the realities. You shouldn't use neutrons or gravitons or orbiting electrons or photos against my theories because my theories need to have the liberty of claiming those unproven things as fantasies. One needs to allow the building-up from my theories without injecting their errors into them. Fair enough? The only permissible objections must come from non-controversial laws of physics or reliable results from experimentation.

Mr. Physicist, feel free to explain the atomic world with the scene I've just described, and you might be able to make some fantastic discoveries, because truths leads to more truths. If, Mr. Physicist, you have encountered insurmountable problems in any area of investigation, try abandoning the mindset of what physics you've been taught for the scenario I've just given. It could make you break through to fixing your problems.

You can see right away that, if Newtonian gravity is in error, the schmucks don't even have the masses of the planets correctly figured. You can make buffoons of them all around, there'll be no end to the fun. You need to make it happy for yourself because they will resist you like your mortal enemy. Newton: mass = gravity force. Bonk, wrong. They can't prove that every atom has one or more gravitons, meaning you are free to violate their Newtonian gravity. They do NOT have reliable experiments to prove that atoms have gravity force. If they say they do, it's either their tricks in action, or their lies. You can prove to yourself that gravity repels heat in many ways, for example, heat rising in a solid, metal rod in a vacuum. Thus, gravity repels heat. Start with that.

Cover a light bulb with wax that has a vacuum within it, or make a vacuum in a container in which you insert a heat source. The wax will melt only directly above the heat source, at the top of the bulb, because heat particles are repelled upward by gravity. If you're not totally stupid, you will reject their explanation that there is still some air in the vacuum creating an upward draft due to hotter air at the heat source. Hotter air does rise in cooler air, but is there really an upward draft of air in that VACUUM? Palease. Don't allow yourself to appear that daft just because you want to fit in with the establishment's dogma. Get out of their box, because it's their prison forbidding you to be free with your own ideas.

You know already that heat in their theory is defined as atoms racing around in all directions within the bulb, and so, even if they do claim that there are some atoms in a vacuum, they are expected to melt the wax evenly all around the bulb. But the wax melts only at the top (I did the experiment), telling you all you need to know: heat particles rise. In the least, give this theory an open mind, and see if you can figure out an experiment to prove that there's no upward draft of a tiny volume of air. Create a special filter that the alleged air must pass through en route to the top of the bulb, a filter that can show signs of air passing through. If no signs exist, you have proven to the world that electrons rise in a vacuum, with gravity force being to only possible explanation. Go, do it now, be famous, and have fun shaming the establishment.

Arrange a vertical, solid, metal rod and apply a heat source to its bottom end. But first cover the rod's exterior with as much insulation as you please that does not allow air to get at it, and for good measure put the rod in a vacuum. You have now removed all possibility of air drafts in contact with the metal. The heat still rises in the metal rod much faster than heat would transfer in the horizontal direction if the rod were positioned horizontally. The explanation is that gravity repels heat particles, inside the metal, in the upward direction. Yes, you know enough to realize that, if free electrons constitute heat, they can enter materials, all materials. You are learning something.

The reason that heat moves horizontally through materials is that electrons repel one another. They spread out, that is, just as heat spreads out in materials, because heat is the spreading of electrons. Heat rises in materials more than goes sideways because there is the extra push from gravity in the upward direction.

Yes, free electrons move through the atomic pores of substances. This is the so-called caloric of a century ago, when the supporters of caloric didn't understand electrons. They didn't know that electrons could be weightless, and so the evolutionary dinks were able to supplant caloric because experiments showed that heated materials gained no weight. Thus, they wrongly reasoned: heat cannot be a material. They wrongly assumed that all materials have weight. Bonk, wrong, and it probably did enter their minds that maybe, just maybe, gravity does repel heat particles. After all, they were the leading experts in physics experiments, and knew that heat rises everywhere. Shame on them, because they preferred the kinetic theory of heat due to lining up better with the big bang. Their intelligence levels or academic accomplishments were next to nothing if their spiritual immorality caused them to chose wrong ideas left and right. They became the reckless, out-of-control, ruling-class freaks. Freaks elevated freaks who together shot down most of the basic realities...perhaps because God arranged nature in such ways that would make fools out of them in the end.


For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God. Also, you might like this related video:

Table of Contents

Web Analytics