Released Strzok-Page Emails Expose Hardened Political Activism from FBI Agents
Wow. All the Conservative Talking Heads Now Confessing, Almost, Conspiracy Theories
God Does a Stellar Job in NATO Connection to the Obama Dream
Peter Really Was Willing to Die for Jesus on His "Last" Night
To check a description in the Coat of Arms, type the surname at this page:
I'm not taking email at this time, here's why. I apologize to all having left email, as I can't even mail to inform you.
The following is perhaps expected, but, for now, it looks like a brotherhood pact to show muscle for Jerusalem's cause:
Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Qassem Soleimani says his nation is ready to support Palestinian forces in the Gaza Strip, days after the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Soleimani, commander of the Al Quds force [concerns Jerusalem], made the offer in a phone call late Monday with leaders of groups in Gaza, according to the Revolutionary Guard Corps’ website, Sepah News, which didn't give details of the assistance proffered. Other forces in the region are ready to defend the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, Soleimani also told the Gaza faction leaders, without identifying them. The mosque is Islam’s third-holiest shrine and a frequent flashpoint for tensions between Israel and the Palestinians.
...Soleimani spoke a day after the head of Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, Hassan Nasrallah, called on all “resistance” groups in the region to come up with a unified strategy to take back Jerusalem.
Probably most prophecy writers teach that the anti-Christ can't come until the Jews rebuild a Temple somewhere in Jerusalem. But there is evidence in Daniel that this may not be required. My webpage below explains with details. In short, the end of Daniel 9 says that the anti-Christ will place the abomination of desolation on an "edge of the sanctuary." It doesn't necessarily mean the Temple building. The sanctuary can be any part of the temple grounds, including outside the Temple building. English translations use "wing of the temple," or something comparable, but as the Hebrew word means, "edge," the Wailing or Western Wall can apply, for it was one of the four walls that surrounded the Temple yard, and that wall is all that stands of the ancient Israeli sanctuary.
Why would Daniel 9 be specific as to a wing or edge instead of the temple building in general, if that's what it's referring to? How does an army desecrate only one side of a Temple building without also desecrating the other sides? But I think God used "edge" to give us a clue that the Western Wall is being indicated. This theory (I don't know whether anyone else holds to it) gets difficult where Daniel 9 says: "And in the middle of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on an edge, desolating abominations, even until the end"(9:27)." Sacrifices / offerings sounds like animal sacrifices and therefore tends to require a temple building. Yet, I suppose, sacrifices and offerings can also be symbolic for the prayers that are made routinely at the Wall by modern Israeli's.
By Friday this week, we hear from an unnamed White-House official: "We note that we cannot imagine Israel would sign a peace agreement that didn't include the Western Wall." But the wall is fully inside the East-Jerusalem "metropolis." Keeping the wall in Israel means that there would need to be a strip between it and West-Jerusalem. Surely the kind and compassionate Palestinians will permit this wee-little strip? Are you kidding? Netanyahu got away with the boom-boom of "illegal" Israeli neighborhoods north of East Jerusalem without the boom-boom of Palestinian guns as a consequence. But what the White House is now saying is pushing too far, if Netanyahu has anything to do with it.
Hmm, "Pence’s two-plus days [next week] in Israel will include meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a speech at the Knesset and a visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial." What? No meeting with the Palestinians? Nope, they refused to see anyone-Trump. They say that Mike Pence (vice-president) is an evangelical. Here's Pense lying: " Vice President Mike Pence recently spoke about the role of faith in the Trump administration, and stated that 'President Trump is a believer and so am I.' In an interview with CBN News's David Brody, Pence said that he and President Trump are deeply grateful for the support they have received from evangelical Christians." You see, this looks like a voter-hog duo. I couldn't stomach the rest of the article (tries to reel in Christian voters).
Have you noticed how rude advertisements are now? The blame for this goes to the website owners, who offer these in-your-face ads, but, so far as I can tell at this time, the latest version(s) of Firefox won't allow us to block pop-ups. Just notice the direction of the Internet toward a money-making racket coupled with spiritual / mental filth. Here's the crap from Firefox this past summer: "Go to the Menu icon (three horizontal bars) and click on Preferences. Select Content. To disable all pop-ups: Uncheck the 'Block pop-up windows' box." But my version of Firefox, updated not many days ago, has no "Preferences" to click. I am getting bombed by pop-ups everywhere, very disgusting. The bottom of the Google page even has a suggested search line, "firefox popup blocker not working 2017". I've just tried to download the Safari browser, but it won't allow it unless one signs in with Facebook (don't use it) or Google. What motive does Safari have to make us do such a thing first? Google sign-in capability wants my email or phone first (go straight to hell without a get-of-of-hell-free card), such an intrusive monster that never has enough. The Internet bosses are ruining the Internet "experience", banking on our addiction to remain on. Are we addicted? Not me. I'm here to do a little work for Jesus.
The tricksters who canceled judge Moore's Senate-seat win have succeeded so far. I assume election tampering too that will, hopefully, be revealed in a recount. It was discovered as fact, at the election of Trump, that Democrats has many dead people still casting votes. And I'm sure they cheat in other ways too. They say that African women voted almost entirely against Moore, which reveals political battles, not only as Christian versus anti-Christ, but as a race battle that increases the racial divide. If ever you hear that some Democrats are Christians, they have got to be almost-exclusively Blacks, Hispanic and Catholics who know not the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, if they know the Spirit, why are they giving their vote to the likes of Doug Jones (the one who just "beat" Moore)?
Moore promised a recount. He was ahead in the race for most the night, but, apparently, lost to high-population centers, where most anti-Christs live. Many, including myself, have talked to God about this loss. If He does not come through in the recount, then we will need to accept that God still allows the Democrats to play their tricks and get away with them. It is drastic to let false-sexual accusations steal an election from anyone, for this tactic will be tried again and again so long as it succeeds. God often, if not routinely, allows wickedness to "win" for a time.
It's true that God's thinking isn't as fast as a computer. It's instant. And while the computer can't answer until it's asked a question, God knows both the question and the answer before the question is asked. He's called, Perfection, and you don't want to fool with Him, Mr. McConnell.
Here's my theory. The Democrats had plotted many election tricks to defeat Moore, and to explain the loss in the face of Moore's huge lead in the polls, they plotted yet another plot, a child-rape case against him so that his loss would appear to be due to it, and so that Moore voters and lawyers wouldn't be looking elsewhere for the tricks that put Moore's opponent ahead.
As this race was so close (Moore would have won if he had less than one percent more of the total vote), one sees why Democrats want illegal Mexicans to vote, because small extras can be the difference between winning and losing. I often wonder what tricks they employ for cheating on the vote tallies. Last I saw, Jones had 49.9 percent, and Moore came in with 48.4. Take .75 percent from Jones, and give it to Moore, and that's a tie.
See if you can fathom a political murder (this past week) in the story below, where the church-goer was first accused of sexual improprieties with a 17-year old, and was then shot dead in what is being called a suicide:
Kentucky State Rep. Dan Johnson, who was under investigation for alleged sexual molestation, died from a single gunshot wound to the head, according to the Bullitt County Coroner.
...Bullitt County Sheriff Donnie Tinnell says Johnson drove to the bridge over the Salt River on Greenwell Ford Road in Mt. Washington, parked on the north side of it and shot himself in front of his car.
His body was found on the bank of the river, just past the bridge.
It says he left a suicide note on Facebook, but the FBI and others are very-likely able to fabricate Facebook messages. Everything about his suicide note suggests that he loved his family, and God, too much to commit suicide. May God dredge up the murderers if indeed he was murdered. The story makes it sound as though the killers wanted to throw him into the river, but something may have changed their plans. Perhaps they were going to throw him into the water only if the single bullet didn't finish him off. In a suicide, two shots are unexpected, and they needed to assure he didn't live to talk.
The article below: "The Alabama Supreme Court shot down a lower court ruling Tuesday requiring counties to preserve their digital voting records. Thus, the Supreme Court is allowing counties to destroy their voter records. The Moore legal team will need to jump on this development fast to protect those records. Evidence of voter fraud exists in the election." Why would some counties take their desire to destroy voter records to the supreme court? Are they seeking to cover up fraud? Looks like. A secondary result is that it denies a recount. Take a look at the article showing a Democrat calling for people in Mississippi, Georgia and Tennessee to come vote in the Alabama election. It looks like the new wave of Internet-sponsored fraud by the wicked. The good people can't use such tactics.
As the call for the voter fraud is at reddit, the FBI can find the culprit(s) and tell us the story behind it...except that the new FBI director is starting to look like a liberal. Already, there are other voter-fraud claims:
It's possible that the corrupt decision by the supreme court was overturned by the GOP:
The Alabama Supreme Court has reportedly stayed a lower court’s order to election officials that would have required the preservation of voting records in Tuesday’s Senate special election.
A circuit judge on Monday ordered election officials to set voting machines to save all digital ballot images, which would preserve voting records in the event of a recount.
Alabama's AL.com said Tuesday morning that the state's Supreme Court had blocked the order.
It's notable that The Hill doesn't mention any details on the blocking of the first decision. This is "funny." It can now be better wiped from the mainline news because the first decision was upheld.
I'd like to comment on the 96-percent Black vote that Jones received. This is a statement of out-of-control racism amongst Blacks. It's impossible that 96 percent of Blacks all agree with Jones on the issues that matter. It is therefore blatant that Blacks voted, not for Jones, but for a party that caters to Blacks. No, wait, it's even worse than that: they voted for a party that fools them into thinking it caters to Blacks. The joke is on you, Democrat Black. You have betrayed common sense to empower a dirt-ball party simply to feed your racism. When you think so strongly for Black issues, it's because you are a racist. When you point out that you are Black, you are a racist. To become normal, never mind your skin color. Don't make me conscious of your skin color, because, when you do, you urge people to disrespect you (or respect you less) because of your skin color. Try shutting up about your Blackness, and earning your respect, if that's what you really want, because it has irritated even me, a non-racist. Pushing your Blackness in peaceful ways doesn't make it right. Imagine if Whites started to push their whiteness, how they would come across like dopes. Well, that's you, Democrat Black. Thanks for nothing, Black voter, you've done nothing to improve the country, and done much to destroy all that was normal. You will eat what you've sown.
Democrat Crime Ring Working Openly
In continuing (from the last update) with what I say is God's exposure of the Clinton crime ring, though more broadly it involves Democrats of several stripes, Fox came out with the following on Monday:
EXCLUSIVE: A senior Justice Department official demoted last week [Ohr] for concealing his meetings with the men behind the anti-Trump “dossier” had even closer ties to Fusion GPS, the firm responsible for the [dossier], than have been disclosed, Fox News has confirmed: The official’s wife worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 election [a real BOMBSHELL].
Contacted by Fox News, investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) confirmed that Nellie H. Ohr, wife of the demoted official, Bruce G. Ohr, worked for the opposition research firm last year. The precise nature of Mrs. Ohr’s duties – including whether she worked on the dossier – remains unclear but a review of her published works available online reveals Mrs. Ohr has written extensively on Russia-related subjects. HPSCI staff confirmed to Fox News that she was paid by Fusion GPS through the summer and fall of 2016 [bang-on time during the thrust to minimize Trump via the dossier].
Fusion GPS has attracted scrutiny because Republican lawmakers have spent the better part of this year investigating whether the dossier, which was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, served as the basis for the Justice Department and the FBI to obtain FISA surveillance last year on a Trump campaign adviser named Carter Page.
This is definitely a turning of the page on Hillary's fortunes. I think that she could finally be baking cookies, since she doesn't want to venture out into public these days. Trump will be soooo happy to hear of this. But as Mr. Ohr worked for Justice, why didn't Jeff Sessions reveal these things???? Mr. Trump really needs to ask himself whether Sessions has become more an enemy, on Clinton-Russia issues, anyway, for some reason that he needs to hide.
See last update's treatment on the BattiSTELLI and Steele surnames, then read more from the article above: "The day before Fox News reported that Mr. Ohr held his secret meetings last year with the founder of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, and with Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the dossier, the Justice Department stripped Ohr of his deputy title and ousted him from his fourth floor office at the building that DOJ insiders call 'Main Justice.'" Personally, I'm holding back from viewing Ohr's demotion for the reason(s) provided by Fox, because it may be from a fabricated, damage-control explanation by Ohr's backers, or perhaps a jumping to conclusions by Nunes and others.
I kid you not, that while writing the paragraph above, a song (Be Born in Me) by Frencesca Battistelli came onto my music system, the only song I have from her on this playlist of 25 songs. It was another of her songs (see "I'm an Empty Page" in the last update) that God spoke to us with as per the Page surname that can work into this issue via Carter Page above, but also with Lisa Page, an FBI employee that is likewise involved with the dossier people. I'm completely amazed. God really does want to expose this thing.
This bombshell along with the Ohr and Strzok stories last week can explain why the FBI and/or CIA put out another fakes terror attack at this very time, so that their media could fill their news with that, crowding out, or giving excuse for not running, the Ohr story. I haven't yet sought proof that the New-York bombing attempt was staged, but the possibility is high. It's not a bad idea to wait a few days to see what others say on whether it was staged.
SonofNewo has another video (below) on the latest. In the 21st minute, he tells that Fusion's Glenn Simpson testified that Mrs. Ohr received a paycheck "to help our company with research [deceptive term] and analysis of Mr. Trump." You would need to be a Democrat sucker to believe that "research" is the best term to use. If you want reality, think more like "to help our company with our conspiracy to get Trump unelected." The demotion of Ohr and Strzok starts to appear like damage control by the DoJ, throwing the two men under the bus, at least for a time, so that DoJ superiors can claim holiness in case either of the two get caught. It's notable that the FBI did not delete the Strzok-Page emails, tending on the one hand to reveal that their release is a DoJ plot to hide the more-serious matters, which, we may assume, got deleted from any "paperwork" if ever it got to it. On the other hand, these emails may have been missed by the FBI because they assumed no need to look through private communications between two lovers. That is, any emails they came across between these two were wrongly assumed to be non-FBI-business.
If you can get to the 26th minute of Newo's video, after you pass his introduction to Mrs. Ohr's ham-radio licence obtained in 2016 (why that year?), you will see the media details (not spouted off much by the CNNs of the country) concerning the hiring by the Clinton campaign of Fusion, in April of 2016, after Trump had trounced all opponents aside from Ted Cruz. We shouldn't assume that Fusion was hired at the time to get Trump, because it might just as well have worked to frustrate Cruz, depending on which of the two men won the primary election. Mr. Cruz should ask himself how much of his life was made naked before the Intelligence goons. In fact, this scandal exposes that the FBI and the Democratic party together with the CIA were reading the emails / etc. of anyone in government they so pleased. And get this: the idiot machine still lost the election, even with the added advantage of its voter-fraud schemes. It tells us how truly weak the Democrats are with voters (probably only about 30 percent dependable), and that the DNC puts up a paper tiger to make itself look competitive.
Shame, Republicans, that you can't use God to finish this monster's days. By rejecting God, you are left to your own devices, and they aren't enough to so much as start the war. You've feared even to start the war with the Democrat deep-state. So, Republican apostates and hypocrites, the queers, child molesters, child abductors, feminists and dopers will invade your families and overcome your children (its been happening for decades already), but it will get still worse because you've permitted demons to rule your "democracy." In the days of open evil, you failed to call on Christians to lead the battle. So long as you think you can win elections thanks to the Christian vote, you will refuse to call on God or to make His sons your leaders.
Ohr works for Rosenstein, the latter being the one who appointed Mueller to go after Trump. The whole affair has backfired so badly that this is where we now are, with Rosenstein in the spotlight. There is obvious need to do more than clean swamp. Several long prison sentences are not only justified and called for, but needed...to send warnings to others. See Rep. Jordan for what proof of criminality he seeks at this time from Wray; the latter appears before another hearing soon.
Look at the timing of Nunes (said to be Catholic) being declared innocent of charges filed by Hillary supporters several months ago. Why has the House cleared him now, to allow his being like a flying raider on horseback with flame-tipped arrows aimed at Mueller's heart? This decision by the House is like giving his horse wings. Are the Mueller people sending up the white flag yet? Nope, but they are getting scared. The CIA man and Hillary supporter, Mr. Morell, came out early this week to say that he should not have contributed to the political-animal circus just before Trump's election because he (Morell) is shocked by the outcome thus far. Yes, shocked, but only because it's backfiring on Mueller. Morell, hypocrite.
High Nunes and others are sure that the FBI gang under chief-bandit Obama knows who it was that laid out the money bag for the dossier. We think that dark-hatted sheriff Wray can hold Nunes and his pegasus off for a while, but not forever. We assume that, once Nunes discovers who funded the dossier, the outlaws will call for a shoot-out, but be dragged into the town jail thanks to all the many Republicans coming to Nunes' aid. When the Republicans took Bill Clinton to the impeachment court back in the 90s, they got practice for what they need to do today. But by all weakling appearances so far, I have no confidence that Nunes will do justice. The Republicans in congress have become concerted babbling, simply ignored, and even toyed with, by the gangsters. When a fiery man of God desired a Senate seat, the Republicans shot him down from off his horse before he could shoot an arrow. They gave Moore no wings for his horse.
The gangsters may spread a rumor in conservative media, to be repeated by conservatives, saying Mr. Ohr met innocently with the people of Fusion (questionable research company) because Mrs. Ohr happened to work for it. But according to the information we now have, she worked for Fusion very temporarily, and for the specific purpose of making Trump look linked to Russian prostitutes, for example. To put it another way, Mr. Ohr didn't speak with Fusion's people merely because his wife was with Fusion, but Mrs. Ohr got a job with Fusion because Ohr's DoJ department had already got the call to sack the president by any means conceivable. In such lawless plots, it's best to have the close relative (trusted) of a conspirator share in the dirty work. Mrs. Ohr, says Newo, has a history of working with CIA projects. We are right in the middle of the deep-state scum here, not of a respectable Intelligence community that keeps the country safe from anti-Americans, but of an anti-American one that uses Intelligence to curb politics, and therefore money issues. There is no use for invisibles (can't attain fame) to curb politics if money in their pockets isn't the bottom line. So, they work together as gangsters, pure and simple, and will shoot to death anyone who overly threatens their powerhouses. Mrs. Ore worked for the CIA's Open Source Works, which supposedly gathers information known to the public, but I perceive government gangsters (and the Illuminati) also creating the information known by the public, and not because the CIA cares for a more-educated public. Instead, the CIA wants us as duped as the typical pot-smoking liberal.
When liberal media put out fake news, they depend on Democrats having small minds so that they can't realize the fakery from deep-state "news releases" (as I call them). Therefore, CNN seeks to make small minds of Democrats to facilitate success of its fake-news program. But the more that the Fusion gang makes the pro-Obama media look bad, the farther away the media will get from the gang. We perhaps haven't reached that point with CNN, but I expect it. The gangsters will take the media down with them, in other words, but the media won't go down fighting to their deaths merely for Mueller and Rosenstein, though I think CNN might for the sake of punishing Trump. We'll see. God may need only to expose the plot to the point where the media begins to betray their end of the fakery. Buckle up, because God may take us for a wild ride starting now.
Battistelli Speaks Again
You know, I ended at the paragraph above, and got doing some other things for a couple of hours, one of which was to add a couple of songs to the playlist that has the Battistelli song, "Be Born in Me." And so I thought to load the Born surname, finding a red tower and recalling the same in the Crest of the Arrow/Arras surname. I wouldn't have mentioned it except that there's a winged horse in the Crest of Borns. I didn't know this when comparing Mr. Nunes with a rider on a winged horse shooting arrows. In fact, I said "raider," and it just so happens, I've just-now learned, the Raiders/Rats and Irish Noons/Nuane's both use an engrailed cross on a gold Shield. Amazing, as though God put those words about Nunes into my mouth. Go ahead and compare English Noons/Nunns/Nones' with Raiders/Rats.
I kid you not, that the Nunes surname shares the bend of Brune's (bears), the latter being in the Born write-up! I'm astounded. The Brune Coat is even a great reflection of the Hillary Coat! It's as though God chose the title, "Be born in me," to point between Rep. Devin Nunes and Hillary Clinton.
Moreover, as per, "Be Born in ME," I've known the Mee surname for about a couple of years, and remember by heart that it uses the Bath cross. The last update linked Baths and Batts to "BATTistelli." I usually mention Artems/Aitons (same place as Arthurs) with Baths because I see them using versions of the same Coat, but then just compare the French Mee's with Artems/Aitons. The Arrows/Arras' are said to be from Arras, the Artois capital, and I trace Arthurs / Artems to Artois elements. I trace Artems in particular to Artemia, daughter of RUSTicus of Lyon, and then Roosts/Rusts, who use a good reflection of the French Mee Coat, were mentioned in the last update's Battistelli discussion. I had said: "The Batts (more bats) actually use a version of the Roost/Rust Coat while the latter use black-on-white fitchee crosses, the colors of the same of Hillarys / Clintons." More fitchees are used by English Mee's.
Plus, I kid you not, the AIDs, first found in Berwickshire with Artems/AITons, use a version of the Brune Coat! Zikers. And Brune's share the bear with the Arms of Berwickshire, and with Berwicks.
I trace the Arrow/Arras tower to Cilnius Maecenas of Arettium (now Arezzo), and that's the place a I trace to Arras and Artois. Maecenas married Terentia Murena, and Murena's share the red tower with Arrows/Arras', you see. And there is a Spanish Murena surname first found in Castile with a Nunes surname, believe it or not. I usually trace "MAECenas" to Julia MAESa Bassianus, and the latter is traced (by me) always to Masseys/Maceys of the Bessin, and it just so happens that Masseys/Maceys use another winged horse. Terentia, and the Terentius surname after which she was named, goes to Trents, first found in Somerset with Baths, who come up as "Trans," which is probably in-code with the "TRANSeunt" motto term of Borns, tending to verify that the Born tower is the Murena / Arrow tower, and so let's repeat that these particular Borns use the winged horse / pegasus. Borns were first found in Lincolnshire with the Rhodes' who in turn use the Bath Coat in colors reversed.
[I happen to return to the Murena topic later in stunning set of proofs as to their ancient Massey-666 roots, at which time the Walsh's will be included who use "TRANSfixus" for a motto code.]
There's more, because I always trace Mee's to the Meu river (Brittany), where French Henrys are said to derive, and then Irish Henrys share the spread, green eagle with Irish Noons. The Mee's even share the upright gold lion with Nunes' and Devins/DAVENs. Yes, that points to Devin Nunes, especially as this Arms of Macclesfield uses the DAVENport fitchees while Davenports were first found in East Cheshire, location of Macclesfield. Macclesfields share the boar head of Mecks, and the latter are much like the Meigh variation of Mee's, and the latter's motto, in English, is, "BY DEVINE providence." Divine's happen to be listed with Devins/Davens, and By's are listed with the Boys/Bie's that use bees.
I conclude that God used Francesca Battistelli (never knew of her until earlier this year) to reveal and corroborate (for you, not just me) several things concerning the Obama dream, and therefore the Clinton crime ring, especially the dossier crew...and now see that a couple of Miss Battistelli's songs (named by God, I must assume, without her knowing it) have come to indicate Rep. Devin Nunes too, the one who wants to uncover, and, more importantly, to reveal, special details on Steele's dossier.
But there is more, as per "BE Born in Me," for I always trace Bee's (Massey/Macey quadrants) to the Bessins (same place as Masseys/Maceys, Sales', and Steele's) due to the bees of the Bessins. The Bee's share the Sales bend with fleur-de-lys. In heraldry, shared symbols are proof of inter-marriage, usually amongst nobles and royals. Massey-branch Masci's were first found in Sales-suspect Saluzzo or nearby. The Masci Coat conforms to one of the Mack Coats (first found at/near Berwickshire) while the other Macks use the Massey/Macey / Bee quadrants.
I can also be important that the Obama dream had me, a Masci on my mother's side, shooting a page (instead of a cue ball) on Obama's billiard TABLE, which evokes king Arthur's Round Table, an item honored by Cecil Rhodes, the globalist who is responsible for Rhodes Scholarships. Bill Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar, but Bill was born a Blythe, and Blythe's, a branch (likely) of Billiards/Billets, were first found in Berwickshire with Arthurs, Aids and Artems/Aitons. It seems that God arranged the marriage of Bill Blythe's (Bill Clinton's) mother to a Mr. Clinton, for Clints share the Blythe garbs.
Mythical things like round tables are usually code for surnames, I have well discovered. The write-up of the Table surname (share blue roundels with Irish Arthurs) suggests that the Table's share the fesse of Chee's/Cheatle's, first found in the same place as Masseys/Maceys, etc. In fact, Masseys are in the Table write-up. The Cheatle / Table fesse is that also of Blythe's.
Roundels are code for FitzAlans of Arundel (my personal discovery), who married Alice of Saluzzo. Note that the Alice surname uses MUZZLEd bears, probably the Berwick bear. Cheatle's are suspect with Keiths (compare their motto with the Alice motto), who lived at/near Musselburgh, and muzzle-like Mussels/Muscels use more roundels. Musselburgh is near Berwickshire. Musselburgh is in Haddingtonshire, and Haddingtons can be using the Artem/Aiton / Rhodes cross. The Rhodes cross has roundels, and the "meum" motto term of Rhodes is likely code for a line from Mummolin, the husband of the daughter of Artemia (mentioned above). That should explain why the Rhodes and Artem Coats both use the same red cross surrounded by four red items, and it explains why Cecil Rhodes had a Round Table group (secret society = rich stupids with political plots on their brain) in connection with Arthur liners (mythical king Arthur was just a myth writer's code for the Arthur bloodline).
You can verify what Alice's use at the link below. Note that Alice's have a hawk in Crest, the symbol of Habs/Hobs (same place as Arthurs) that I see in the Arthur motto code, "OBstantia." Habs/Hobs use a TIGER, suspect with TIGRanes, husband of Hop-like OPgalli.
The page on the billiard table was turned (by me) into a paper airplane before shooting it, and here it's interesting that Plains/PLATErs, who can link to the Mussel/Muscel plates, share the patee-fitchee cross with Mee's, who are also Meighs and therefore suspect from Macks, Mecks (share the Mee/Meigh boar head) or Macclesfields, for the latter use the same engrailed cross as Mee's/Meighs. "Maccles" is much like "Mussel," and there is a Macclesfield location in Cheshire, i.e. where same-colored Cheatle's were first found. Cheshire is where Meschins ruled who use a version of the Mussel/Muscel Coat. The Arms of Macclesfield above uses a "deSUNT" motto term, and Moke's/Mocks use "Diis SUNT," which should explain why Borns use "tranSEUNT." "Sunt" is suspect with a branch of Sanders, for the latter's Irish branch shares the elephant with Mascals (Keiths come up as "Mascal"), and moreover Sanders use a Chief similar with the same of Macks but substitute plates, the Mussel/Muscel symbol.
The "Cura" motto term of Moke's/Mocks looks like code for Currys because they use a saltire in Macclesfield-cross colors. The page/plane on the billiard table went into the CORNER pocket while Corners/Garners have the sword design, in both colors, of Mochs. The Currys were from Waterford, and while the Arms of Waterford uses the stag head of Trumps/Tromps (MECKLenburg) stag, it's in the colors of the Jung/Young stag while Mecks use a "JUNGor" motto term. The CORNers/Garners share aCORN with Dutch Tromps. The Acorn surname uses a near-reflection of the Plain/Plater Coat.
It's Sander-important that Sands were first found in Lancashire with Singletarys who in turn put plate's on their black antelope. The Davenports, whose fitchees are in the Arms of Macclesfield, are said to use "A man's head with a gold rope around the neck," and then Rope's put a black antelope in Crest too. Singletarys show a variation like the Singular variation of Sinclairs/SAINTs (beside the Keiths/Mascals), and as the Sinclairs (share the Moke/Mock rooster, no guff) come up as Suns too, the sun in the middle of the Born Chief may apply. I always link the Singletary antelope to that of WheelWRIGHTs, a branch of Wrights while God showed me/us, thanks to "Write Your Story" (see last update), a song by Francesca Battistelli. Note that Raiders are using the Sinclair cross.
So, as Batt-branch BATHs use the same cross as Macclesfields and Mee's, and as Macclesfields were first found in Cheshire with Bee-related Masseys/Maceys and Steels, let's repeat: "BE BORN in ME" by BATTiSTELLi. And, scratch your head, while her first name is FRANCesca, one Frank surname, with a motto translated as "Born not for ourselves," shares the cross of Plate-like Blate's. It appears that God named her and then chose her song title specifically for the details of this revelation and to convince the reader that He is in it. Indeed, the Frank surname with that translation shows the Latin motto, "NON nobis nati," as though God arranged even that to point to Rep. Nunes.
Nancy Pelosi, an Obama nut, is still the leader / speaker of Senate Democrats, and German Franks share the column with Pelosi's, the latter first found in Piedmont with the first Masci's and Saluzzo. Pelosi's were first found in SAVIGliano (right beside Bra), which is of the Savage's/SAVIGe's (Cheshire again), who use six lions in the colors and format of the fitchees of Saluzzo-related Clintons and Hillarys. It could appear that God chose the first name of Bill Clinton's wife in order to make a point.
Sorry for going on so long, but the links just keep happening. While Italian Franca's were likewise first found in Piedmont, Scottish Francis' were first found beside Cheshire. The English Francis', with a red version of the English-Francis Coat, were first found in Oxfordfshire with Saluzzo-shielded Clintons, and these Francis' share the Coat of TARENTs, a branch of Trents'/Trans' that came to topic in the Born motto term, "TRANSeunt." As I gleaned that the red Born tower is that of Murena's, let's repeat that they trace to TERENTia Murena (BC times). You see, God guided me well in my decade-long heraldic excursions.
Saluzzo was ruled by the Montferrat branch of de-Vasto's, and while rulers of Montferrat used a red Chief with white Shield, the Saluzzo Coat is nothing but a blue Chief with white Shield. These color schemes are used by both Francis surnames. Italian Franca's use the white-on-green (Frank / Blate colors) fesse of Spanish Franca's, the latter first found in Castile with Murena's (and Nunes'). The Borns use a red Chief with white Shield, and I can glean their marital link to Formans, the latter kin of Anchors who are in-turn in code with the anchor held by the Mee/Meigh lion. Formans use the BRUNswick lion, and Brunswicks are very-likely Brune's = Borns.
While I made a paper AIRplane with the page, the Airs/Ayers named Ayrshire (or vice versa), where Nons/Nevins were first found that should apply to the "Non" motto term of Franks. Devin Nunes seems poised to discover the secrets behind Lisa Page, Carter Page, and the Steele dossier, but the airplane was suspect also with the Clinton meeting, on an airplane, with Loretta Lynch. As I said, the billiard hall of Obama was owned by two people, though the dream didn't inform me as to who Obama's partner was. However, I think I can venture a good guess, for when I saw all the tables from a top-view (like one way up at the ceiling), they were in the shape of an 'L'...which was suspect, for the first time in the last update, with Loretta Lynch. As I looked at the tables from above, which were covered with a BLACK SHEET, I instinctively knew (or was informed by God) that the longer part of the 'L' was owned by Obama's partner. Therefore, that partner looks like Loretta Lynch. That is, I predict that there was a strong Obama-Lynch conspiracy...that perhaps Nunes will unveil, especially as Sheets/Skate's are a branch of the Ayrshire Skits/Skeochs (not-bad evidence that God used an AIRplane to indicate Ayrshire elements). The Blacks use another "Non" motto term, can we believe it?
Amazingly, the Blacks with the "Non" motto term share the Chief-Shield color combination of Borns, both first found in Lincolnshire.
I think I can now decipher why, immediately after shooting the airplane into the corner pocket, I was in the BACK YARD of the billiard hall, watching Obama dance and SKATEboard. The dream ended with Obama arguing with an employee kneeling or squatting (looking like he wanted to hide) whose BACK was toward Obama and myself. I looked up the BLACKledge's (also called, Blakelache's) because they are in the write-up of Blythe's (as Blythe kin), which recalls that I identified Blake's as a Bled branch, from Bled (i.e. like "Blythe") over on the Sava river.
Lookie. The Blackledge Coat (fitchee crosses), perhaps a version of the Clint/Clent Coat, shares blue "vair fur" on red with BACHS, you see, and are said to be from Blakesley Hall on the Blakesley road to YARDley. That's very compelling, suggesting that God, with the end of the dream, is pointing to the Blythe-Blackledge marriage as it pertains to Yard / Yardley liners. The Blackledge Coat is an obvious take from Nero's, though this doesn't tell us who came first, Nero's or Blacks. Nero's have variations suggesting the Neretva river of the Ardiaei Illyrians, the proto-Arthurs.
So, as Blythe's are suspect with the Billet variation of Billiards, while the billiard tables were covered in a BLACK sheet, perhaps the sheet was indication of a Black / Blake surname that became the Blythe-related Blackledge's / Blakelache's. In this picture, Obama's billiard partner can also be Bill Clinton. Blacks even share the red crescent with Blythe's, and Yards happen to share "non" with Blacks! That was unexpected. Lake Garda is not especially far from Bled, and Bleds use three chevrons in colors reversed from the two of Lise's, and, believe it or not, as per "BlackLEDGE," the Ledge's are bringing up that Lise Coat! Zowie. It tends to verify that Blythe's and Billets were at least part of the namers of Bled (or wholly from Bled).
English Ledge's/Lodge's/Loge's were first found in Suffolk with Plains/Platers and LORETTs/Larrits, can we believe this? If we compare Scottish Larins to Ledge's/Lise's, we see that Loretts/Larrits look like a Larin branch. It's as though God named Loretta Lynch's first name to make this link to Ledge's/LISE's, for they speak of LISA Page, who is in the airplane code suspect also with Loretta Lynch's airplane. Suffolk is also where Davers (Arthur colors and format) were first found who are from the Daversi Illyrians, otherwise the Daorsi, on the Neretva river with the Ardiaei. The Daver Coat may even be a version of the Blackledge Coat because the latter share the Nero/Nerreti Coat.
This is excellent for yet another reason, because Lisa Page (FBI lawyer) was having an affair with Peter STRzok (together suspect by Nunes / similar others with the Steele dossier), whose surname became suspect with the SUTER variation of Sewers, because, when I shot the airplane/page, I sewered (SHOT straight into a pocket without hitting a ball) into the corner pocket. Plus, STRzok became suspect with the Sturs at the Stur river flowing to POOLe (as per Obama's pool hall), and beside Hampshire, the latter being where SOGGs/Suges' (suspect in "StrZOK") were first found who use a near-copy of the Blackledge Coat. Amazing. The Billiards were first found in Maine along with French Josephs while English Josephs were first found in Hampshire.
The English Maine's (same place as Blake's) share the colors and format of Yards. The latter's water bougets are shared by Bugs, from the Bug river, home of the Neuri, a branch of which became suspect in naming the Neretva (also called the Naro). At one time, German Bugs showed footless martlets in the colors of the one of the Maine Josephs. So, we saw Blacks linking to Yardley (footless martlets) liners in a way that strongly points to the back of Obama's employee in the back yard of the billiard hall, but I didn't know until this paragraph that Blake's share three, red footless martlets on a bend with Yardleys. Nor did I know until here that the green dragon head of Blackledge's is that of Blake's, which recalls that it's the dragon-head design also of Neretva-like Norths!!! Zikers. Blackledge's and Norths both put a crown around the dragon's neck, and so it seems that Black's are definitely Neretva / Naro liners, which can explain why Blackledge's use a Coat like that of Davers.
Aha! Norths may be sharing the fleur-de-lys of Corners closely, and Norths were first found in Sussex with Courts/Coverts. I'll show the significance of Courts/Coverts below.
Amazingly, the Henry martlets are colors reversed from the Blake martlets. The first-known Joseph of Hampshire is said online to have been was Henry Joseph (or Joseph Henry), whom I glean as kin of the Henrys (share footless martlet with French Josephs), a branch of which shares the green, spread eagle with Quarrels. Obama had a quarrel with the man in the back yard! The quote below (last update) made James Quarles suspect with the argument = quarrel that Obama had with this man. Was that employee representing Quarles himself? "Another of [Mueller's] eight lawyers is/was James Quarles. Checking that latter surname, it's not only a variation of the Quarrels, but uses a "fesse dancette" while first found in Norfolk with the dancette-using Dunhams." Here it's interesting that the chevron of Blackledge's (same place as Singletarys) can be using one of the three Singletary chevrons because Jonathan Singletary, in Obama's ancestry, changed his surname to Dunham (surname of Obama's mother). I've always traced Dunhams to Cheshire's Dunham-Masci / Dunham-Massey, and Masseys/Maceys have been traced well to Maccabees for a long time.
In colors reversed, the footless martlets of YARDleys become green, the color of the GARD martlets, and Gards named lake Garda, beside Val Trompia. The Tromps are the ones who share the ACORN with Corners, and acorns have been resolved as code for Avaran HACHORANi Maccabee, kin of Curtus Maccabee, the latter said by the historian, Josephus (ancestral to the Joseph surname) to be his ancestor. I now see that the girdle of Braswells (almost the double chevrons of Chaplains and Josephs) applies here, that being the ancestral surname of Democrat leader, Donna Brazile (according to her Wikipedia article, if it's not removed). I assume that the girdle is code for Girtle's/CURTlers (Court / Curtis colors), suspect with Curtus Maccabee. I can't recall the details, but Courts/Coverts were recently (two or three months ago maybe) clinched in a trace to Val Trompia / lake Garda, the point being that "GIrtle/Gertler" is much like a GARDLe(y) variation, if ever there was one, of Yardleys (the latter use a Petty Coat).
Courts/Coverts were first found in Sussex with Acorns/Allcorns, and the latter are the ones looking like they use a version of the Plain/Plater Coat. As the Acorn/Allcorn Coat also reflects the Tanner Coat, it's interesting that Savigliano is near the Tanaro while Acorns/Allcorns share the red heart with French Savage's.
Next, the Blackwells are said to be of "BlakeLACHE" in the Blythe write-up, warranting a look at the Lache surname (Franconia), which happens to share black-and-white checks with Steele's. Feasible, the Lache saltire is the Black saltire in colors reversed. Part of the Lache Coat is: "In chief a gold escutcheon with three blue pales and a red chief." That is, three blue pale bars, in the colors of the six pale bars of Courts/Coverts, and almost colors reversed from the three pale bars of Cortelli's/Corte's. I knew nothing of Lache's while I was tracing Black-related Yard liners above to Curtus-Maccabee liners at lake Garda, and so there we have the evidence for a correct trace.
Some days after writing the heraldry above, I got around to checking the Cue surname, because I shot the airplane with my pool cue. It turns out that the Cue Crest is the lion holding a garb, in the Arms of Macclesfield, but all in colors reversed. Yes, for the Cue Shield has the garbs in the Arms of Cheshire, and moreover the Kew variation suggests a branch of Caws/Mackays, a likely branch in-turn of the Cheshire Maceys / Masseys/Maceys. We can now go back to the Nunes pegasus because Masseys/Maceys use the pegasus, and because I, the shooter with the cue, am a Masci liner that named Dunham-Masci in Cheshire. It can all suggest that Mackays / Macey liners named Macclesfield.
Cue's/Kews (Dunham colors) were first found in Norfolk with Dunhams, and while it is known that Obama's Dunham line was from Randolphs, Scottish Randolphs (Moray, same as some Mackays) use the same cross as Macclesfields. It recalls that while Obama's Dunham line is known to descend from Jonathan Singletary, Singletarys share plates with Maccles-suspect Mussels/Muscels, a branch from the Cheshire rulers, the Meschins/Masculine's, who probably owned the Cheshire garbs. The Caws/Mackays even share the MUZZLed bears of Alice's/Alis'.
I suggest (have been for years) that Randolphs were named after Ranulph (sometimes called Randolph) le Meschin, the first Meschin ruler of Cheshire. English Randolphs even share the Dunham Coat, suggesting that Hamon de Masci of Dunham-Masci was of the Meschin bloodline.
As per a pool cue, it's notable that English Pools/Pole's (same fleur-de-lys as Masci's) use an upright lion colors reversed from the one in the Arms of Macclesfield. It makes Pools suspect with the Cheshire Polsdons. Moreover, French Pole's share the upright gold lion with the Cue/Kew Crest. And let's not neglect the pool table, for Table's have a write-up suggesting their sharing the fesse of Cheshire's Cheatle's, who come up as Cue-like "Chee."
As Table's use blue roundels called, hurts, note that the Hurt surname shares the same fesse as Meschins and Mussels, but also of German Suters and Nadlers (I strongly suggest that the Jewish Democrat senator, Jerrold Nadler, should be brought into this picture). In fact, the German Suter Coat well reflects the entire Hurt Coat so that we have found further verification that I sewered the airplane as an act of God to indicate the Suter / STRzok bloodline. And Obama was seen wearing a suit, in the scene immediately following my sewer, to indicate the Sewer/Suit/Suter surname that shares a white escutcheon (shield) with Nadler-suspect Nathans. Note the leopard in the Sewer/Suit/Suter Crest, for the earls of Macclesfield use leopards.
It's not likely coincidental that Mackays were first found in SUTHERland, or that German Nadlers share the Sutherland stars, themselves said to be the Moray stars (in someone else's colors). The Sutherland stars are in the colors of the Rothschild/Rothstein stars.
Natts/Nathans, whom I think were honored by the first Rothschild when he named his first son, Nathan, were first found in Rhineland (the general area of the first Rothschild), where Schutz's where first found who are in the eSCUTcheon code. This is one theory as to why the first Rothschild, Mayer Bower (Frankfurt), changed his surname to RothSCHILD, said to mean "red shield." Nathans come up as "Natt" while Franks, suspect with Frankfurt, use a "nati" motto term. Moreover, Scottish Harts (hurt branch) share the Frank / Pollock saltire while Caws/Mackays were in Moray, location of Rothes, the whole of which was the proto-Rothschilds. Peter Pollock, the first Pollock, highly suspect with Pools, built Rothes castle i.e. at Moray's Rothes location. Therefore, the Obama dream touches upon the Massey-Rothschild relationship, and the Round Table of Rothschilian secret societies.
Rothes is generally located where the Rose's and Rats/Raiders were first found, wherefore it can be repeated that Noons/Nones' share the Schutz saltire. I had described Nunes as a raider with arrows on a horse, and while Rothschilds use arrows as their chief symbol at times, and while Jewish Rothchilds (roses) use the horse, the Arrow/Arras surname shares the Mascal fleur-de-lys so the my giving Nunes a pegasus jibes with the Massey pegasus. But zero heraldry was on my mind when I gave Nunes these items for to make a point: that he was let lose by Republicans to war against the Mueller side. However, I'm now wondering whether Nunes is a political Rothschild player / servant. The Mascal / Arrow fleur are colors reversed from the same of German Suters, and moreover the Suthers/Southerns (same place as Plains/Platers), highly suspect with the RODham Coat (= Rothes liner), use a spread eagle half white -- color of the Masci wing -- and half blue -- the color of the Bauer wing!!! Until writing here, I had forgotten that Masci's use wings i.e. which item was mentioned with the pegasus of Devin Nunes.
As I SHOT the PAPER airplane into the sewer, as they say in billiards, note that German Suters share the black fleur-de-lys with Plains/Platers, the latter suspect as a branch of Plate's beloved by the heraldic plates of Mussels/Muscels. It suggests that the Mascal escutcheon is closely linkable to the same (different color) of Sewers/Suters. It just can't be coincidental that PAPERs/PEPwells use carNATIONs while Nations are listed with Nathans! God truly knows his heraldry. And PEPwells are suspect with Pepins/Pepys', who in-turn use the Rasmussen bend with fleur.
Pepins are from the Hyksos pharaoh, Apepi, who followed on the throne from Khyan, the latter traceable to Keons, Kane's and Keens, part of the escutcheon line. Just to convince the reader that "escutCHEON" is code, it appears to be code for Keons, for the similar Keens not only use an escutcheon of their own, as does the Arms of Rothschild, but they share an upright, white horse facing the Shields left side (viewer's right) with Jewish Rothchilds (no 's'). It is far-more rare to have a symbol facing left, or a bend rising toward the left, but both the Jewish Rothchilds and the Keens use one (the Keen bend is made of three lizards suggesting the Lazard/Lizart surname).
I always trace the Wing/Wink surname to Vinkovci, without a doubt, which is a location near the Sau/Sava river, and so while Sewer-like Sauers are said to be from the Sau, note the SAUter variation of German Suters, or the "Sauviter" motto term of Noons/Nones', for even the Sava's/Savage's/SAVIDge's are suggested with that motto term, important because Savage's named Savigliano, in Cuneo, not only where Masci's were first found exactly or roughly, but where Conns / Coneys trace who share the Meschin / Mussel / Suter fesse. Cuneo is where the Suter-like Stura-Demonte flows, and Demonte's share the unicorn with RasMUSSENs, a Masci branch. But we suddenly have a conflict as to whether Suters/Sauters were from the Sau versus the Stura, yet I don't see why they couldn't have been from both, for the ancient Maezaei were along the Sava.
German Harts were first found in Bavaria with German Bauers and German Rothchilds/Rothes'. I just know that God called me to heraldry to expose Rothschild roots in my mother's Masci bloodline...because He wants to expose the Rothschild empire. The Crest of English Nathans (same fesse as Hurts) has a heart suspect as code for the Hart / Hurt / Arthur bloodline, and Danish Bauers (share leopard with Rhodes') even share the hurt with Arthurs and Table's. This is high wickedness for which the worst-possible Punishment is Reserved, unless they repent. The mythical Pegasus of mythical Bellerophon together killed the Chimera dragon in Lycia, which is on-shore from Rhodes so that the latter's city of Kamiros looks like the representation of the Chimera. Ancient myth was all code for people groups and places.
English Nathans use an arrow rising bendwise to the left as evidence of Rothschild kinship. The same Nathans use compasses' while Pettys (same quadrants as the Arms of Rothschild above) use the compass too but call it a needle as code for the Needle(r)/Nadler branch of Nadlers, we can safely assume, first found in Shropshire with Meschins (same bend as Nadlers) and English Rothes' / Rudes'. It's important that while the first Rothschild had a start with the prince of Hesse-Cassel, Needle's/Nadlers share the giant Hesse sun. In colors reversed, part of the Rudes cross is that of Compass'/Campeaus's/Champels and Sinclairs (ROSlin, beside Musselburgh), explaining the Nathan compasses.
Moreover, the Rasmussens/Assmanns (left-rising bend), who probably use the Rothchild horse and the Mascal fleur-de-lys, were first found in Hesse, and they named Assmannshausen (House of Assmann) in RUDESheim (Home of Rudes'), the latter suspect with the Rudes surname, which itself is probably using the Macclesfield / Randolph / Haddington cross. Again, as Macclesfields are suspect at the Mussel line in Musselburgh, in Haddington, home of the Cheatle-suspect Keiths/Mascals, note that Keiths/Mascals are said to be from a Catti tribe, for Wikipedia says that a Chatti peoples founded the Hesse-Cassel area. To no surprise, the Rudes Crest has a shield = escutcheon.
Amazingly, while Arrows/ARRAS' share the Rasmussen fleur, it explains the ERAS/ERASmi and similar variations of the Rasmussen surname. I don't remember making this link before, except perhaps on one occasion within the last year or two. It strongly suggests that Mussen liners hooked up with Artois' capital, Arras. From there, we trace "Arras" back in time to Arezzo (Italy), the ancient Arretium, birthplace of Cilnius MAECENas!!! Zikers. Rasmussens were descended from Maecenas himself with certainty, and while he married Terentia Murena, the Murena's share the red tower with the Arrow/Arras Crest. Excellent. I'm going to remember this.
The Childs/Chills (Rasmussen colors), long suspect with "CILnius," use white eagles, the color of the Masci wing, and Masci's share the left-rising bend with Rasmussens and Massena's/Messina's. Excellent, for the Child/Chill Coat is the Tarent Coat in colors reversed, proving that Childs trace from Terentia Murena. Another white and spread eagle is used by KILNers/Kelnore's, suggesting another CILNius line. The Rasmussen horse is highly suspect in the Coat of Hebrons/Hepburns, from CHILLingham.
The s-less "RothCHILD" ceases to look like "red shield," and looks more like a Rothes merger with Childs/Chills.
Scottish Cassels use a reflection of the NOLT/Nolton/KNOWLton Coat while German Nadlers/NOELLners are said to have included an old NOLDner variation. The Noel-suspect Knowles' (Covert colors, probably the Rothchild roses) not only use a reflection of the Hebron/Hepburn Coat (beside the Knowles'), but share the white elephant in Crest with the Crest of Mascals (share the Saddock escutcheon), and the latter were first found in the same place as Coverts who in-turn share a Coat like that of the Bavarian Nadlers/Noellners. Pettys use the elephant too.
I've just loaded the Habrons (from MOSELy) by mistake (while trying to load Hebrons/HepBORNs), to find their Aborn variation, evoking the Borns, and the latter not only use a pegasus, but a red tower suspect earlier with the Murena tower! Zinger. Repeat: "Formans use the BRUNswick lion, and Brunswicks are very-likely Brune's = Borns." It just so happens that Habrons/Haborns show only a chevron in the colors of only the bend of Bruno's. It looks complicated for deciding which of the surnames came first.
The daughter or granddaughter of Peter Pollock (builder of Rothes castle) was Muriel, and so it's very interesting that Spanish Muriels (probably the five Rothschild / Bower arrows) use tops of towers (but call them "walls") in colors reversed from the Murena tower, making "Muriel" and Pollocks together suspect as a Terentia-Murena line. The heraldic feature, erased, which is used by English Muriels, is what found the Eras variation of Rasmussens. The erased feature is when an heraldic head is erased at the neck, which can speak to the "Nec" motto term of Rodhams and RUTHERfords, the latter suspect with Moray's Rothers/Ruths/Randolphs. The Neck surname, highly suspect with Germany's Neckar river at Stuttgart (traces to the Stout vikings that used the raven symbol), is feasibly a branch of Ness'/Nessons and escutcheon-using Nissans (left-rising bend), and so why not the Nusen variation of Nathans/Nations? I'm seeing a Neckar-river link to Rudesheim / Assmannshausen.
Emailer Pollock (I think she has passed away), as I call her, whose first name is/was Mariel (God arranged this, didn't he?), said to me that the daughter or granddaughter (I can't recall which) of the ancient Muriel Pollock married a Mr. Watson, and while Watsons were first found in RUTland, Rutlands share the oak stump of Rodhams. It was emailer Pollock that educated me on the ancient Muriel, whom she called, "Lady Rothes." She was put into my life to reveal (but it took me almost ten years) that Rothschilds were from the veins of Peter Pollock. God bless Mariel, whose surname is not "Pollock (her mother was a Pollock). She suffered greatly in this life.
The white elephant of the Knowles Crest is in the Crest of Corbetts, first found in Shropshire with Rudes' and English Rothes. Rudes' use a MURAL coronet, no guff. Corbetts share the raven with German Rothes'/Rothers/Rothchilds, tending to clinch the close Mascal link to Rothschilds. All of Freemasonry is now dependably traceable to Cilnius Maecenas, a Roman in the first century BC. It is very-likely that Maecenas' descended from the Mucianus surname (Roman), which was anciently given a mythical Mucius as symbol, who lost his right hand, and thus had only his left remaining, explaining the heraldic-left features of Masci's, Massena's, Rasmussens, and Rothchilds. It appears that, somewhere down heraldic history, the Masci bloodline knew itself to be from Mucianus liners, otherwise it wouldn't own the left feature of heraldry. Masons/Massins, by the way, share the Moray Crest.
This paragraph is amazing. I had wondered whether the loss of Mucius' right hand was the reason that the False Prophet will force the mark of the beast on the right hand, in honor of the Mucius bloodline (his original symbol was the right hand, otherwise the myth writer would have made him lose the left hand). I had also predicted, a few years before discovering mythical Mucius, that the False Prophet would be a Massey / Meschin liner. Before I knew that Masci liners used left-rising (heraldry calls it "sinister"), I had found from Wikipedia's "Six" article that the international marine symbol for "six" is three left-rising bends in blue-on-white, colors reversed from the three Murton bends (rise normally to the right). Not only are MURtons suspect with the Mur variation of Muriels ("Mur" explains why they use walls), but emailer Pollock was born Mariel Murton. Had she not come into my email life, I may never have known the Murtons, but, in any case, her Murton surname now makes me predict that the False Prophet will love the Mucianus > Maecenas > Pollock > Rothschild bloodline. The Cheshire Mortons (Sutherland star?) share the blue wing with Bauers. Morton liners named Mortone-say in Shropshire.
When Anders Fogh Rasmussen had to give up his top-cheese job at NATO, he was replaced by Mr. Stoltenberg, the current NATO chief. Although the Stoltenberg Coat at houseofnames.com shows the Say quadrants, which are the Massey quadrants in colors reversed, and almost the Morton quadrants, the descriptions page describes the Stoltenberg Coat like this: "On a blue shield a red heart pierced by an arrow." Where have we seen that before? Oh, yes, in the Nathan/Nation Crest, where the arrow rises to the left. Can you believe it, the Foggs (same place as Masons/Massins) share a white unicorn with Rasmussens.
The Stoltenberg Coat at houseofnames shows eagles in the black-on-gold colors of the two in the Murena Coat, and Mortons are definitely traceable to the family of Terentia Murena. The way to make the trace is to know from Wikipedia that Murena's brother (Aulus Murena) was a Roman general who conquered the Salassi up in the area of Wallis canton (Switzerland). It could appear that Wallis canton was named after his first Aulus name, which could very well have been a Roman surname itself, but, in any case, the first point is that Wallis-like Walsh' use the colors and format of the Cheshire Mortons, and moreover Walsh's use a "mortuus" motto term honoring what looks like Morton / Mur / Moray liners. If that's not enough, Walsh's use a swan pierced by an arrow (Rothschild symbol, right?), and while Swans are listed with Sions, Sion is a city in Wallis canton. Yup, the Walsh arrow rises to the left. Pollocks use an arrow piercing a boar.
But there is more, for the Wallis/Wallace surname shares the Marano/Mauritano Coat, while Murena's are also Moratins. You can't make a mistake here, especially as WALSers share the Mason/Massin / MORay mermaid. The walls of Murs/Muriels now look like a clever symbol to honor Walser / Walsh / Wallace liners too. I would not have known the Walsers but for an emailer from Switzerland, who said that they were named after Wallis canton but lived historically or currently in the Lys river of Aosta. Aosta had been founded by the Salassi that Aulus Murena conquered, and moreover the Lys river well explains the fleur-de-LYS of Masci's and Masseys. So, you see, ancient Murena and Maecenas liners had come to live in Aosta, and this should explain why the Salassi-like Sales' (fleur-de-lys), first found in Cheshire with Masseys, share the black pheon ARROW head with Walsh's.
Emailer Pollock wrote in to say that she met or read about some noble people with the Lannoy surname. She said they gave her the impression of affinity with Pollocks, don't ask me how she knew such a thing. Years later, after it was resolved through my work that Lannoys and their Lyon branch were descended from Herod Archelaus at Vienne-Isere, near Lyon and Macon (Masons are also Macons), I found that the Mariel surname shares the Lannoy lion. By that time, I had already traced Pollocks to Herod Archelaus. I know what I'm doing with this, trust me or not, but I can't go over the many details I've pointed out on Herod liners. The first Herods were linked closely (by me) to queen Nysa of Cappadocia, the country where Herod got his Archelaus surname. She traced with certainty to Nissans and Ness'/Nessons, so why not also the Nusen variation of Nathans/Nations? The latter's HEART is like "HEROD," suggesting that Hearts/Harts and similar surnames, as well as heraldic hearts, are Herod liners. Hearts/Harts share the Pollock saltire, in Herod/Hurl colors, while Hurts share the Herl/Hurl / Nathan/Nation fesse.
Wikipedia once shared that a coin of Herod Archelaus had a military helmet with feathers, and this coin was found elsewhere online. Wikipedia removed it...after I pointed out that Lannoys use a military helmet with feathers. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia reads up on tribwatch, but that some of my intrigued, spiritual enemies may have from time to time, who can report things to their dark tools (authors) at Wikipedia (= education that must be geared to the beliefs, positions and propaganda of anti-Christs).
The Herls/Hurls use "shoveller" birds that look like ducks, and then the Duck surname is listed with the Logans who in-turn use a pierced, giant heart. It suggests that Herls/Hurls were closely-related to Ducks, but that their duck symbol was modified to a shoveller to honor the Shovel bloodline (i.e. which they married). Shovels/Shoulers (fleur-de-lys, symbol of king Clovis/Chlodovech) use the colors and format of Childs/Chills, and both were first found in HERTfordshire. Some Shovels are said to descend from LUCY CLOUDISley (much like "CLOVIS"), who looks named after a line from "CHLODovech," son of Child-liner king Childeric. Shovels use the colors and format of Clubs, suspect from "CLOVis." Make the obvious Maecenas trace to king Childeric, especially as Shovels/Shoulers share the Massey / Lys fleur.
Amazingly, Clubs share white-on-red fish with Lucy's/Luce's (Norfolk, same as Shovels), suggesting that Lucys/Luce's descend from Lucy Cloudisley, or that she was named after Lucys/Luce's. The Shovel write-up says that they were at Knowlton, in Kent, where Knowltons/Noltons were first found.
Back to STOLTenbergs, for there is a separate Coat for Stolts that shockingly shares red billets with BattiSTELLi's, the latter highly suspect with the STEELE dossier because God found a way to equate the page on Obama's billiard table with Miss Battistelli. And the Billets are also Billiards. This is so amazing, because it now expects that God was pointing even to NATO's leader(s) with that dream. And I who shot the page into the corner pocket am a Rasmussen liner. We can even ask why "NATO" looks like the "nati" motto term of Franks (Franca colors) while Miss BATTistelli is FRANCesca. Reminder: Obama's mother is a Randolph liner while Batts share the black bat with the Moray Randolphs.
But what is more amazing now is that Baths and Randolphs (and Macclesfields) share the cross of Fessys, who remind me of "Fusion." And I've traced Fessys to the Fieschi family of Genova without a doubt, who smack of the Fisks that share the pyramid with Battistelli's!! Just look at that, while Miss Battistelli is suspect as God's code for Mr. Steele, the one pushing the dossier of Fusion GPS. And I've just learned that Stole's/Stowells use a cross in Fessy-cross colors! It gives me a great idea that Stolten / Stolt liners were Stur / Stura liners, for reasons below.
The "vinces" motto term of Fessys is code for the Vinkovci line to Wings/Winks, and then the Genova surname, highly suspect with the Masci wing, uses the wing design of German Bauers, which appears to have an arm-with-fist design between the wings while the Arms of Rothschild, the part holding the five arrows, is a strong arm such as we see in the Dark/D'ARQUE Crest. The page on the Billiard table had a small ARC in it while otherwise lying flat on the table.
The Fuss'/Fuswells use a cross colors reversed from the Fessy cross, and it happens to be a red moline cross, the symbol in the Crest of Sibals, whom I trace to Cibalae, the ancient name of Vinkovci. In the Shield, the Sibalds use another moline, that of SEGNI's/Segurana's, first found in Genova, explaining why Fessys use a "SIGNO vinces" motto phrase.
Emailer Pollock had made some fuss in linking the Pollock-Molle line to Sibald-Lundy elements, but I can't recall the details, though it seems obvious that Molle liners are represented partially by the moline cross. She taught me that the daughter of Eschyna de Molle married Robert Pollock, brother of Peter at Rothes castle.
The Segni/SEGURana moline is shared (in colors reversed) by SEAGARs/Sugars, first found in Norfolk with Dunhams, and with the Sawyers who not only smack of "sewer," but can potentially be a Seagar branch. Sawyers happen to share white footless martlets with Singletarys, as well as sharing the checks of Bils', suspect with Billiard/Billet liners. Norfolk, by the way, is also where Stallens were first found who use fitchee crosses colors reversed from the same of Clintons and Hillarys.
In the Crest of Segni's/Segurana's is the Este eagle, which is white, the color of the Masci eagle wing. At one time, both Masci wings were white, but one is now gold, and then the Seagar Crest has both a white and a gold wing. It appears that Masci's, first found beside Genova, had linked up with a Segurana branch in the Genova area. Of further interest is the BECK moline, white like the Seagar moline, and colors reversed from the Fuss/Fuswell moline. The Obama dream ended with emphasis on the BACK of Obama's employee, who was in the BACK yard of Obama's billiard hall. German Backs use a STEER. The Chief-Shield color combination of Segni's/Segurana's is that of Saluzzo's / Clintons.
Seagars / Segni's evoke the Soggs/Suges (same place as Sturs) that I see as the makings of "StrZOK," for the Soggs/Suges' were first found beside the Stur river suspect with "STRzok." The German Sage's are also Saegers, and English Sage's were first found beside the Stole's/Stowells, the latter smack at the Stur-river area. In fact, Stole's/Stowells use a cross in the colors of the Bath / Rudes cross, and both Stole's and Baths were first found in Somerset with the Roets, the latter very traceable to the RUEDesheim version of "Rudesheim." The Roets were confirmed kin of the Bills! Again, the Sawyers share the checks of Bill-like Bils'.
German Stole's (Switzerland), in Suter colors and sharing their Zionist stars, use a split Shield with the split rising to the left. Perfect for Natt / Nathan/Nation / NATO liners. In fact, the Suter fesse is colors reversed from the Nathan/Nation fesse, and Natts are the ones sharing a white escutcheon with Sewers/Suters. On top of that, the red arrow is shared between Nathans/Nations and Stahls/Stahlins, who can be a branch of the Stihls (no Coat shown but the surname exists), who in-turn look much like Steel liners. In fact, Stahls/Stahlins come up as Steels.
The Fisks share one black pale bar with Victoria's/Fichters, and an ESToile with Feschs/Fechts/Vechters/Factors. It's a family match all around. The latter surname was first found in Switzerland (location of Geneva) with German Stole's.
The Sturs (from Manche, same as Masseys) are also STOWers, smacking of the STOWell variation of the Stole's that happen to use lozenges in the colors of the Grimaldi lozenges. I had read that the Fieschi were related to Genova's Grimaldi's! Bingo, the Stolts and Stoltenbergs now look like kin of Stur / Stura liners, as do Strzoks.
When I shot the page / airplane into the sewer, it was a Grimaldi doing so, for my mother is half a Grimaldi, and half a Masci, in both her parents' birth surnames.
So, while I think that God conveyed to us the Strzok surname with my sewering the page, because Sewers are also Stur-like SUTERs, we now have Fusion GPS suspect in God's codework with the Fessy / Fuss bloodline that links square to StrZOK-suspect Seagar liners, and then we have the page=Battistelli connection from God that gets us to the Fisks (share pyramid with Steele-suspect Battistelli's), who must, therefore, be a branch from Genova's Fieschi. It's perfect, as could be expected of God, and the Steels (Stolt branch?) even use checks half in the colors of the Sawyer and Bils checks, as well as the Chief-Shield colors of Segni's/Segurana's, and yet add billets in Chief that compliment the billets in the Battistelli Chief, while the Steel billets reflect the Clinton Chief, especially as Stelli's/Stellers use a star in the colors of the two in the Clinton Chief (it was resolved that Clintons are Saluzzo liners). Recall that Stallens may be with the Clinton fitchees round-about, and let's then add that the Rothschilds/Rothsteins share the gold, eight-pointed star with Stelli's/Stellers, and show an arrow colors reversed from the Stahl/Steel arrow.
Aha! The Bills, who share the Saluzzo Chief-Shield color combination, use one pale bar (looks much like a billet) in their Chief, in the colors of the three pale-wise billets of Steels! (Heraldic pale is defined as vertical in direction.)
Saluzzo was ruled by the Vasto family, perhaps a branch of the Vassy variation of Fessys. The Fists/Fausts (show a fist) are suspect with Vasto's, which can explain the fist-like shape between the Genova/Geneva wings. Alice of Saluzzo married the FitzAlans of Arundel (kin of de Molle's husband), and Arundels along with Rundels/Roundels (share the Alan Coat) are in code with heraldic roundels, and should be part of the Round-Table code. The Alans and Rundels are highly suspect with one of the three Stur fesses, while Saluzzo is near the Stura river.
It is often said that the Round-Table Illuminati is that of Cecil Rhodes, and while BILL Clinton joined his Rhodes-Scholarship program, Rhodes' are likely a Roet branch while Roets likewise use the Chief-Shield colors of Saluzzo's. FitzAlans lived at Shropshire's Clun, explaining why Cluns share the Saluzzo Coat exactly, but Cluns were first found in Perthshire along with Wings/Winks, who use their own billets, suggesting a Wing/Wink connection to the Bills and Bills/Bils'.
Perthshire is very linkable to the Perdrix peak of Mont Pilat, which is at St. Etienne, and then Etienne's share the billets (in Billiard/Billet / Billiard/Hillard / Pilate colors) of Besancons/Bassets, the latter first found at the Forez area, to the near-west of Mont Pilat, while English Bassets share three fesses in the same colors with Sturs (Massey colors). BESANcons are highly suspect with Bessins (Massey kin), and therefore with Basina, wife of Childeric. Basina was from Thuringia, where German Roets were first found, as well as the Talls who once showed the bee design of Bessins.
"Etienne" is the French word for Stephen, and then one Stephenson Coat (shares "solum" with Saluzzo-line Bills) likewise uses the Chief-Shield color combination of Saluzzo's, and throws in the same stars as Billiards/Hillards, a version of the Billiard/Billet stars. The Bill Chief must be a version of the Stephenson Chief, and the other Stephensons, both first found in the same place as RODhams, use the same bend as Rodhams, but can be traced to the Valentin bend with green symbols. And Valentins are from Valentinian I (Roman emperor), born in Vinkovci. I keep forgetting the dates of Valentinian's affairs, but they were at least in the ballpark of Basina and Childeric.
It's amazing that God was able to use props in the Obama dream that not only make quality surname links while helping me to trace to their correct historical sources, but the same props are able to point to individuals involved in the Mueller deep state and its current scandal. Check up with my direction from time to time to see what God does with it. Forgive my long updates, as I spend much time on this. It's interesting if NATO's invisibles, highly suspect with Rothschilian secret societies bent on European globalism, are in fact part of the Obama dream, for as that dream is about Trump's mortal enemies, recall that Trump snubbed NATO. And where Trump opposes global warming (never call it climate change), he may be opposing the same invisibles, very likely in fact. We want to know who they are.
New Revelation from Fox
Midweek, some of the emails from the Strzok-Page correspondence were released:
In one exchange from August 2016, the FBI’s Lisa Page forwarded a Donald Trump-related article to Peter Strzok, writing: “And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” [= open / unashamed political activism from the FBI!]
He responded: "Thanks. It’s absolutely true that we’re both very fortunate. And of course I’ll try and approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps.”
...The Justice Department has been reviewing thousands of their messages in recent days, turning over roughly 375 to the committee from between August 2015 and December 2016.
Zowie, there's thousands yet to be revealed, but will the justice department let them all loose, that is the big question. No matter, it seems to me that God is in this. While the Democrats celebrate a Senate loss in Alabama, yet here we have some major cracks opening up into the guts of the Democrat deep state that will have an affect on all elections, including federal. I'm not necessarily saying that God is about to empower Christians. Exposing the wicked is not the same thing. To expose them, they have got to be allowed to rule. When they rule and do wickedly, that's when they condemn themselves in the worst ways. It's going to justify Armageddon, and the physical fall of entire cities. That's how bad they are, as we shall see.
Here's Lisa Page showing their conscious guilt: "So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can’t be traced..." And in the end, they got caught. But multiply this situation by many times because the FBI under Obama went into his political direction. Obama is at the top of this embarrassing (bare-assed) situation. The article above gives more details, if you care to get the dirty gist.
It just so happens that this information was released on the day that Rosenstein appeared before a congressional question period. Below is Rosenstein saying that he sees no problems with Mueller, like one totally deaf to Republican accusations, and wholly blind to the Strzok-Page dynamic. I think I get it that because Mueller demoted Strzok, Rosenstein can continue to say that Mueller is impartial. Note that the one (Nadler) asking him questions knew beforehand what Rosenstein's answer would on the "good cause" question. Nadler would never have asked that question otherwise. Therefore, Rosenstein is compromised...but we all knew that, and this is what Democrats love the most, compromised politicians. That's their aim, to apply the worst of people to high offices who are reliably partial, and it's due to this method of ruling that the Republicans started to use the same method.
Below is the other side (Jordan) questioning Rosenstein. Jordan is emphasizing a two-step criminality by claiming that the people who paid for the fabricated dossier did so to have the excuse to "spy on Americans." He includes Trump and his election team especially in that phrase, but there is another reason that the dossier was fabricated: to defame trump in the election process so that voters would not vote for him in as-great of numbers. It's the same, essentially, that they did to Moore, but with another trick. And the Democrats must have a very-long list of dirty tricks used to win elections. Jordan apparently has evidence that the dossier was used to get spy powers, a deeply-criminal thing. This really is looking bad for Democrats involved, but they not only employ tricks to win elections, but to cover for their crimes. Let's watch and see whether God outsmarts them this time:
In the video above, we learn, for the first time, that Strzok, while in the office of Andrew McCabe (another FBI squirrel), and speaking about the possibility of Trump winning the election, told him: ""We can't take that risk," implying that he and McCabe and others at the FBI must try to do something about it. This is exactly the definition of the shadow government (it's the "Illuminati" loosely when anti-Christs are involved, and it's the Illuminati more strictly when winking satanists are involved).
Jordan then goes on to reveal yet another bombshell, while Rosenstein ignores. We thereby discover, for the first time solidly, that Rosenstein is indeed one of the squirrels. Jordan speaks to Strzok's message to Lisa Page; after she suggested to Strzok that he had a high level FBI job capable of railroading Trump, he said: "I can protect our country [from Trump] at many levels..." (Aug 6, 2016). Strzok not only reveals that he's willing to use his FBI authority to lob a political bomb at candidate Trump (why not also other Republicans?), but says he can use different levels within the FBI to conduct his attack(s). He knows that there are other FBI people who will respond appropriate to his wishes...because he knows that they are fellow goons. The Ohr couple comes forcefully to mind. This has been your FBI, America, and the problem is elsewhere too, of course. And here we have Trump's great opportunity to cleanse swamp, yet we would like to know what he means by that phrase, whether to simply fire the criminals, or put them through the courts for to receive the appropriate penalties.
Here's Page's words to Strzok: "And maybe you're meant to stay [hint-hint] where you are [at the FBI] because you're meant to protect the country from that menace." Clearly, Page has no bones about an FBI chief using the power of that job to railroad Trump.
Here are Strzok's words in better context: "...And of course I'll try to approach it [by job, my high position] that way [as Page suggests and hopes]. I just know it will be tough at times [= bragging]. I can protect our country at many levels [more bragging]..." The first two sentences are clearly his admission to use his power to railroad a presidential candidate. The criminality can't be revealed more blatantly, yet Rosenstein acts like he knows nothing of this, and, rather than start an investigation to see whether Strzok followed up on his promise to Page, Rosenstein points to the inspector general (of the DoJ, I assume) as one who's already looking into it, i.e. no need for a special council too. The thing to watch for now is whether Nunes bucks for a special council to get Strzok in the spotlights.
You may be disagreeing with my view of Rosenstein because he had wanted Comey fired when Trump wanted him fired. But there are at least two explanations for this Rosenstein position even while he is a closet partner with Comey: 1) Comey had become a magnetic hot potato, and needed to be taken out in efforts to prevent closer scrutiny of him by Republicans; 2) Rosenstein knew that Comey's firing was an irreversible done-deal by Trump, and decided to appear for it to disguise his bias toward Comey. A third possibility is that Rosenstein was just an honest man and thought that Comey should lose his job due to protecting Hillary unethically. But if that's the case, why isn't Rosenstein firing Mueller for his unethical track, or starting new special councils, just like the one he gave to Mueller, to look into any one of the many conspiratorial stories that look far more suspicious than Trump's ties to Russia. It's clear: Rosenstein is one of the entrenched rodents.
But I say that God is about to set one rat trap to get multiple of these squirrels; they won't get away with it, and may Bill Clinton be one of them.
Below is Chaffetz birthing an idea in the hearer's mind. He's speaking about today's Rosenstein hearing, where he says Rosenstein saw no evil (a good way to sum up his entire attitude), and then claims that, when Rosenstein refused to answer questions based on the classified nature of the issues, the House could have cleared the room of media cameras and then forced Rosenstein to answer what he refused to. While the public then doesn't get to hear some inside information, at least it's fished out for to deal with it, and to send the issues further along toward criminal charges. So, because the Republicans didn't clear the room of media, it suggests that the Republicans are merely making a show of it, not wishing to get tough with any of the criminals thus-far brought to light. I call them criminals because they have probably committed more crimes than what we are now seeing.
I'm not willing to believe that Nunes himself is avoiding arrests, but, if he is, then we need to view him as one of the rats. Nunes is the one bringing to light some of these stark issues, but could it be that he's actually revealing, by design, the milder things rather than the ones with deeper criminality? Is his job secretly to catch the Democrats red-handed on smaller matters, then blown them up large in order to retain Republican voters? I sure hope not. I didn't consciously know, when I portrayed Nunes a raider, that the Raider surname is listed with Rats. I wasn't thinking of any surname at the time.
The inspector general of the DoJ, Michael Horowitz, has had that job since the middle of Obama's eight years. What do we know about his political side? "Horowitz announced in January 2017 [Trump was president] that the Inspector General's office would examine evidence related to "allegations of misconduct" regarding FBI Director James B. Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices and whether Justice Department employees leaked information improperly during the run up to the 2016 United States presidential election." Inspector generals are the "police" of an organization, chosen by the president. Did Obama chose Horowitz to "look after" things at his DoJ? Is Horowitz a Democrat or Republican? If he's a Democrat and an Obama lover (I don't know that he is, and Wikipedia won't tell), why would he reveal the Strzok-Page emails? Was this a trick, to give a false (not-legally explosive) explanation as to why Strzok was taken off the Mueller case? Did Eric Holder get away from his crimes because Horowitz (Holder's "police authority") went deliberately light / fake on him? Horowitz is nearly due to bring out some of his reports. If he goes light, we will know what sort of fur he wears.
Well, looking into Horowitz, I found the following video (after writing the paragraph above) where Chaffetz speaks to Horowitz, and with due respect Chaffetz says that Horowitz went "soft" on Holder's gun-running operation. Another conspiracy (obstruction of justice) may be in the makings with Horowitz's claims for Strzok (while appreciated, these claims may yet constitute a cover-up). It's the inspector general's job to report on criminality within the DoJ, precisely why Obama would want the "right" person for the job who reports virtually nothing troublesome:
On August 15, nine days after the Page-Strzok exchange above, Strzok shows that the suggestion made by Page (on the 6th) is still on his mind, and moreover we discover that the two brought this issue into McCabe's office (there's a chance that McCabe birthed this plot in Page's mind in the first place). Some say that "Andy" below may not be Andrew McCabe, but I say there's no better choice. The Wall Street Journal says it's McCabe (number two at FBI). Strzok says to Page:
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk."
It's not a small thing politically, but is a small thing legally, unless the evidence for what he did concerning his words also comes to light. Thus far, there is only talk, very disgusting, but, legally speaking, it's just talk. Page apparently made a comment during the discussion in the office, suggesting that Trump can't win. And Strzok incriminates himself by implying that WE (not just himself) must do something about it. He's proposing a plot. Yes, nine days or less after he talked about how he could use different levels, he's in the office of a higher level with Page herself, and the two may have been floating the need for a plot or two into McCabe's ears. And Rosenstein, acting like he's out of touch, goes, "Peter Strzok who?"
Now that we know how bad the talk was, we can ask whether Strzok got chosen, in 2017, by Mueller to be on Mueller's get-Trump crusade purely because Mueller wanted the worst-possible goons around his table. To put it another way, Rosenstein prematurely sanctified Mueller, today as I write, before investigating, or before others investigate, whether Mueller knew of Strzok's goonery against Trump before Strzok was brought into the crusade. Rosenstein will say that Mueller didn't know these things because Mueller fired Strzok in July (2017), but I'm asking why else he was removed from the crusade? Was it really due to Mueller's discovery of the nasty exchanges with Page, or did Mueller know of grosser reasons, such as a solid Strzok connection to the dossier conspiracy? Now that's more like it. If Mueller saw his political enemies about to expose Strzok with Steele, that's a great reason to get him off his council fast.
And where did McCabe (acting FBI director at the time) send Strzok in July, to the unemployment line, or to prison? No, but Strzok was sent to another department within the FBI, not exactly a just punishment for conspiracy to commit near-treason with a team of other political animals which he himself rounded up. It get's nightmarish for Rosenstein if he knew Strzok's dark plots before he was brought into Mueller's crusade, for Rosenstein (Washington's deputy attorney general at the time, if I recall correctly) would then be expected to have charges laid against Strzok. It's exactly a situation wherein he might feign, today as I write, that he barely knew Strzok. Rosenstein's position gives him much access to Intelligence, if he requests it. Has he asked the FBI for the full low-down on Strzok? Not according to his I-know-nothing attitude today. Mr. Rosenstein, why depend on the inspector general to get to the bottom of this when you can do it yourself?
The August Strzok meeting in McCabe's office was in the month after the FBI had spun into motion it's Trump-Russia-collusion bunk, suggesting that the FBI was already on attack mode when Page was urging Strzok to join the fight. One could venture to say that Steele gave his fabrication to the FBI, although we may discover that this was an FBI plot, not a Steele plot, to begin with. Yet Christopher Wray, McCabe's boss, adds nothing for the public knowledge, nor for congressional knowledge, not even some clarifications on the news reports in case they are not quite correct. For me, it indicates that things are far worse than what the news reports have so-far revealed.
The Strzok-Page messages under discussion were at the time that Mrs. Ohr worked for Fusion GPS, and so here we have the potential FBI link the DoJ i.e. Mr. Ohr:
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who supervises Mr. Mueller, toed the Mueller-FBI line on Wednesday [Dec. 13] before the House Oversight Committee. He repeated FBI Director Christopher Wray’s preposterous excuse that he can’t answer questions because of an Inspector General probe. And he wouldn’t elaborate on the news that Nellie Ohr, the wife of senior Justice official Bruce Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS, which hired Mr. Steele to gin up his dossier.
When Christopher Steele is repeatedly said to be the author of the dossier, it plays a card for the Democrat crime ring, because he's a British spy i.e. not an American. The real authors (even if Steele merely wrote the fabrication) of the dossier have got to be American Democrats, and these chaos cowards are hiding behind Steele their human shields. So, Steele is taking all the flack when it belongs to others; the slamming doors of the telephone booth have painfully sandwiched his nose, and down he goes like the big dope of the hilarious operation. The dossier has the most-ridiculous accusations, a testament to the wickedness of the trans-Atlantic deep state. They initiate elaborate sting operations, and need a sworn brotherhood (or mafia) in order to get away with it all.
Part of this affair eventually touched upon a Trump-team man, Papadopoulos, who was very-apparently in contact with Steele's team, suggesting the sort of conspiracies that "theorists" have longed claimed, where the opposition infiltrates the target's team to play a role in discrediting / framing it. It rates as a sting because the target's members are pulled in to play their role unaware. The wicked applaud and congratulate themselves for successfully playing such high-stakes games.
As for Mueller, why isn't he defending himself against the bad publicity he's been receiving? Why isn't he going news show to news show discussing with the people the 5 W's of these issues? Does he consider himself too sacred for news shows? Are they beneath him? Is he God almighty just because he's investigating the president? Rather, isn't the game he's playing making him look like a low-life? What, where, when, who and why? Tell us your version of the bad press against you, Mr. Mueller. Defend yourself, clawless fraidy cat, because we otherwise have greater reason to see you as guilty. The hounds are chasing you up a tree as we speak, and even are getting a good whiff of your camp, with so many big-time Democrat donors. The Republican carnivores would just love to rip out the flesh of your fat donors, if only the hounds had the appropriate FBI master. And while the hunt doesn't seem to have a wray of hope at this particular moment, it could turn ugly on you, Mr. Mueller, soon. There is a Fox gnawing at your leg bone, making you more lame with every passing news day.
The last thing good people need at this time is a quick victory over Mueller. The longer this progresses, with Mueller staying alive, the more we can see how the deep state operates. It is better to have a Stubborn Mule at this time.
There is talk (Politico) that Paul Ryan, whom some voters think to be a Democrat secretly, is quitting in 2018. Possibly, he's quitting because he knows of a Republican investigation into his political affairs. Quitting can reduce or even remove the heat. But how many of Mueller's legal-team members have quit since it was disclosed that they are all biased against Trump? Will the Stubborn Mule who hired them please tell us whether there is even one man on his legal team that isn't a Democrat jackass?
Just a reminder, Hillary Clinton had the stupidity and the criminality all at once to build a private email server while she was conducting the entire nation's foreign-affairs programs. Try to wrap your head around that, because she wouldn't have done it without Obama's wink, which easily explains why Comey didn't act. We need to assume that this was a conspiracy to commit and hide crimes. The Fox has a new news story against Comey on December 15 that tends to vilify him even more than before. Just think of it, a secretary of state dares to keep her foreign-affairs correspondence private to herself, and less protected from foreign spies, but we have yet to see evidence that Comey was the least-bit ticked off, let alone disgusted. Not only did he remove "grossly negligent" from his report, but, as Fox is reporting as of the 15th, he changed the "likely" that foreign spies got hold of her emails to "possibly." Here's that story, not a bombshell, but worth addressing at this time:
The problem with Comey is that he merely called it "grossly negligent" to begin with, which was itself going soft on Hillary. Yes, while the phrase has the implication of criminality, it was a lot friendlier than the truth: Hillary wasn't merely negligent, she crafted the private server in the first degree. So, you see, we should not view Comey as treating Hillary justly in his original draft while then softening his second draft. We should view him going too soft in his original draft. Yet, "grossly negligent" allows him to spear Hillary, and I think he wanted to because he wanted her to lose the election...because he was afraid that president Clinton would stir hot Republican investigations into the email matter that would catch some of Comeys criminality during the Obama programs. It would be better (for him) to have the Republicans governing so that they would have less assets and time to investigate Hillary. And spearing Clinton via Comey's pre-election-day comments was very-possibly Obama's idea. Hillary may have lost the election because the Democrat deep state deliberately neglected to utilize its methods of voter fraud on her behalf. How ironic.
Here's the new rub against Comey in case you didn't load the article above: "In an early draft, Comey said it was “reasonably likely” that 'hostile actors' gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account. That was changed later to say the scenario was merely 'possible.'" "Likely" requires a criminal investigation, while "possibly" can be washed away as: foreign spies don't necessarily have the Intelligence to hack a private server. But no one believes that.
Actually, as the video at the article above says, Comey may not have made the changes to the exoneration draft, and one Fox speaker thinks it may have been the FBI lawyer, Lisa Page. But as Comey was the FBI director, he's responsible for the changes, anyway. My hope is that things get hotter on Trump so that he more-badly needs to flush out Hillary's and Obama's criminality. What has Trump done to alleviate the misfortune's of his team players now trampled by Mueller? Or is Trump concerned only about self?
Fox reveals: "Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, released copies Thursday of the edits to Comey’s highly scrutinized July 2016 statement." But as some Republicans from the highest levels are seemingly trying to protect Hillary from prosecution, or even from further embarrassment (regardless of the reason(s)), how can we trust Mr. Johnson? What if he has a smoking gun against Hillary but, instead of releasing it to the public, released merely this pea from his pea-shooter? The best reason I can think of for Republicans laying off of Hillary's woes is their fear of counter-attacks. In that case, the enemy has the Republicans locked into do-nothing for Lady Justice. How honorable are the Republicans for abandoning her for fear of political-war losses? If this is how they act when they have the White House and even a Senate majority, it looks gloomy for her.
If Mr. Johnson is the chairman of a homeland-security panel, and if he's really in favor of revealing things about Hillary's email scandal, shouldn't we be seeing more? Ahh, but this little pea that hit Comey on the cheek, and fell no-nothing to the floor, is in support of Trump, nothing more, for he is the one who fired Comey, and Trump has applied pressure to various Republican houses to get to the bottom of the scandals ...precisely because he needs exposure on Hillary for to shore up the Republican party in-time for the 2018 elections. If the Republican establishment loses the senate on 2018, it will look bad on Trump and serve to erode further voter support for Trump's re-election. In other words, the Republicans seem uninterested in justice for any reason, but are acting the political animals. When voters see this, they see that Republicans are no better than the lawless Democrats, and that's much of why the Democrats have been able to win elections to this day.
Late this week, Fox was made privy to a new theft by Mueller's council of personal data on the Trump team. This is so unbelievably terrible, to take emails of many on the Trump team early in his presidency, to discover their most-private communications / sentiments / goals / plans, without the team members knowing it. In short, a government agency, General Services Administration (GSA), which handles some white-collar maintenance for the White House, gave the emails of Trump's team to Mueller without informing the Trump team. And for his part, Mueller didn't tell anyone. There is a question on whether Mueller merely requested the emails, or whether he demanded them by force of a secret-court order, or whether anti-Trump people at GSA volunteered the gift to Mueller without his request. Whatever the case, it's as though Mueller, without justification, was able to see Trump naked in his own bedroom:
Exclusive — A lawyer for the Trump presidential transition team is accusing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office of inappropriately obtaining transition documents as part of its Russia probe, including confidential attorney-client communications, privileged communications and thousands of emails without their knowledge.
...the transition team’s attorney alleges “unlawful conduct” by the career staff at the General Services Administration in handing over transition documents to the special counsel’s office.
The transition legal team argues the GSA “did not own or control the records in question” and the release of documents could be a violation of the 4th Amendment – which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Kory Langhofer, the counsel to Trump for America, wrote in Saturday's letter that the GSA handed over “tens of thousands of emails” to Mueller's probe without "any notice" to the transition.
The attorney said they discovered the “unauthorized disclosures” by the GSA on December 12th and 13th and raised concerns with the special counsel’s office.
“We continue to cooperate fully with the special counsel [good luck] and expect this process to wrap up soon,” Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, said Saturday.
The special counsel’s office [horrified now] declined to comment Saturday.
Langhofer wrote that some of the records obtained by the special counsel’s office from the GSA “have been leaked to the press by unknown persons.”
...Langhofer requests in the letter that Congress [the do-nothing] “act immediately [congress doesn't understand that word] to protect future presidential transitions from having their private records misappropriated by government agencies, particularly in the context of sensitive investigations intersecting with political motives.”
That's a lot heavier than a pea. The criticallity is easy to comprehend. The enemies of an in-coming president fabricate an accusation against him, start a special council, and then rape all his communications legally by force of the council. Once Mueller gets the president's communications naked on his table, he turns up the lights, and wonders what the best methods are to hatchet the man to death. You are watching Deep-State Democracy in Action. Stay Tuned for the Final Axe.
Actually, I'm starting to wonder whether this isn't a false leak, by a ghost that will never be caught, to keep the media hung-up all week long on false news, in order to detract from the real story that will get Mueller in serious trouble. Mueller isn't going to say anything about this, and the no-nothing creatures in the halls of congress will once again ask questions, with the guilty crustations once again snubbing their noses. We know the script by now. The liberal media will just argue that Mueller had a right to the emails as per his investigation, and that, as a normal course of an investigation, he didn't need to tell the targets that he was reading their private messages. So, what may at first appear to be a bombshell in Mueller's face may turn out to be a well-crafted dud from the Mueller crab himself, perhaps with the purpose of releasing some of the emails to embarrass Trump-team members, perhaps in retaliation for the Strzok-email leaks. This is great just the same.
Let the war begin until Trump is made so painfully uncomfortable by a stinger that he gets some serious retaliation going. I'm not opposed to his tweets, nor his choice to tweet, but that's not enough action. It's more of a cop-out, and a disappointment to his team members, if it's the full extent that he goes to as part of his war against Mueller. Trump is playing the nice, casual guy while Mueller is the poisonous scorpion under its attack rock. Trump's team members can't understand why he doesn't just step on the rock; it would be so easy. Maybe Trump has something powerful and unexpected up his sleeve, and maybe it the scorpion. We just don't know how to paint this surreal thing.
CNN's story on this says that Trump's legal team is "led by John Dowd and Jay Sekulow." I worry about Jay getting hurt. This excursion that he's reportedly planning next week, to Mueller's turf, can be dangerous. If they get disgusted with him, they can target him. For all we know, the CIA has given Mueller Jay's communications, telling where he goes Friday nights, and other such private information they have no rights to. Jay could argue that, since Mueller has no charges against Trump, the latter cannot be investigated. Otherwise, Mueller can do what he's doing to anyone. But how can the deep state be incriminated further unless Mueller is permitted to freely operate unjustifiably? It should be fun to watch him fabricate the justification, but if Trump gets seriously hurt, it's probably his own fault for not stepping up his side of the war. The Republican do-nothings have made for themselves another brother, Donald Trump.
What can Trump do to retaliate?
1) Call to a meeting, at an unbugged location (not his home or White House), the reliable members of congress who are interested in bringing Mueller to justice. Have a secret chit-chat that results in a coordinated effort to probe and then investigate Mueller's various instabilities. Rock his boat on Uranium One. Share his involvement in Uranium One with the nation, informing that anyone who knows anything more about it can come forward. Watch Mueller look over his shoulder. Fair is fair.
2) Bring multiple law suits against Rosenstein, one for interfering unjustifiably in the president's affairs, another for defamation, another for negligence and recklessness because his representative / appointee, Mueller, did not announce that Trump was thus-far innocent of Russian collusion. Instead, he gave the whole world the impression that he had something on the president, and in the meantime did not restrain the anti-Trump media when it continually portrayed the president with guilty overtones. Request from the judge that Mueller reveal immediately the progress he has made against Trump-Russia collusion, and in the case that there is nothing to condemn the president to an illegality, deal with it in Rosenstein's office.
3) Start a special council against Mueller regarding his unjustified attack, and thereby secure, by the Intelligence methods of the NSA and FBI, all of his communications, and those of whoever he had talked to, including the ins and outs of his investigation of Trump's team. Make Mueller feel naked and cold. Fair is fair, and justice must be fair in order to act as a deterrent. The scales of justice must not be permitted to tilt in favor of the conspirators.
4) Bring some of Mueller's team members to court so that Mueller bites his fingernails, not knowing which of his mates will betray him. Fair is fair. One such member is Strzok. Charge him with conspiracy to railroad a viable presidential candidate who happened to become the president. Once the charge is laid, the lawyers have the easy path to seize Strzok's FBI communications in all regards, not just his emails to Lisa Page and vice versa. These seizures will greatly facilitate the cleansing of the FBI of other political animals.
5) Set a pre-arranged trap to discover whether Wray is of the enemy. Get serious, and pull no punches. The president needs to know what now rules the FBI, for if Wray is the enemy, then the FBI is still weaving plots against, and spying on, a president, and the blame for this treasonous invasion goes to Wray. If Wray proves to be an enemy, let Trump voters know it. Let the voters tear Wray apart in social media, and let distinguished others do the same on Fox News. When public trust in the FBI evaporates even further thereby, let the president justify an internal probe into FBI employees at every level. Pick the obvious suspects for being anti-Trumpists, and read through their official communications to find material similar to that of Strzok and Page. Expose them, and fire Wray for using excuses (e.g. FBI employees are super) for not conducting his own internal probe at a time when conspiratorial enemies of Trump were perfectly expected throughout the organization.
6) Take CNN to court for defamation and false reporting as part of the Mueller conspiracy. There won't be any lack evidence. Make an example of a major media, to clean up the others. Don't turn a blind eye to the ruinous, or its roots will grow by adding branches to itself.
Just look at all the ruinous things out there, Mr. Trump, all growing like tall weeds. What are you going to do about it? Tweet against it? You silly bird. The devil isn't afraid of a tweety bird.
The Democrats along with Rosenstein have indicated that because Mueller has secured two guilty pleas in his investigation, he is justified in going forward with the investigation against Trump, but that argument is not able to make lawyers cower. It is good only for Democrat dimwits who don't mind being deceived if it can feed their animosity. The two guilty pleas are unrelated to Trump guilt or Russia collusion, and therefore justify nothing for further prying into Trump's affairs, or into his team members. And when Trump's side goes after Mueller, it is not an act against democracy. There is nothing inherent in democracy that allows the treasonous abuse of a president such that Mueller is guilty of, and then there is law in a democracy which allows any person to deal appropriately with abuse if it goes too far in unrepentance. Mueller is unrepentant, and the two guilty pleas only expose that he is using them to justify more abusive and harmful intrusions. "Democracy" isn't defined as Mueller getting to do whatever he pleases, because law and order forbids him at certain points.
Every wrong thing done by Mueller can be blamed on Rosenstein. Rosenstein can't hide behind Mueller while Mueller hides behind Rosenstein, as though neither can be blamed for any wrongs. Rosenstein called Mueller to do an investigation, but if Rosenstein doesn't stop Mueller at an abusive point, Rosenstein is the man to blame and rectify. Sometimes, you need a large stick to rectify an unrepentant sinner, and Rosenstein showed this week that he's unrepentant, not at all sorrowful or apologetic for Trump's woes in this matter. As Rosenstein started the investigation that Mueller refuses to stop, both men are guilty, at this empty point, of uncalled-for malice. Trump did nothing to call for this intrusion into the affairs of his life, or into his White House. The federal police is guilty of abusing its powers. Buckle up, America, it's going to be a rough ride, because Democrats will not repent.
The Democrat, Eric Swalwell, in speaking to Rosenstein at the hearing this week, not months ago, said the ridiculous: "We have a president who has demonstrated a willingness to involve himself in ongoing investigations that involve he and his family." In other words, the Democrats and Rosenstein himself are needing, not justification alone, but legal protection for continuing the abuse. That is, one way to protect yourself from abuse is to argue that Trump has been open and fine with the investigation. And that's how Democrats work, devilish fiends that they are.
Try Voting in a Middle-Class Christian, See What Happens
If politicians honor justice by carrying out the prosecution of high-level government people, they will soar politically, scoring landslides, yet they are too afraid of political wars, thinking that the wicked would have them removed from power. And that's why Democrats start threatening wars against them, to curb their doing the right things that would secure victories too large for Democrat voter fraud to overcome. And the Republican establishment, including Fox, has just revealed again that it cares diddly-squat for God, wherefore how can we expect it to fulfill the justice needed to make the nation more holy? Holy? What's that? It's nothing known by the Republican establishment. Holiness is everything healthy for mankind, the richness of inner and community life all bound in the One God.
One would think that Fox news would take a few hours over a couple of days, call some time-out on its anti-Mueller marathon, and investigate voter fraud in Alabama. But I've seen nothing of this from Fox, such a shame because destroying, or even reducing, voter fraud alone can give the current Republicans (country-wide) easy power for decades, in my opinion. Imagine the elimination of voter fraud coupled with traditionalists who love justice and normal society. It's enough in itself to win elections, even though there's an army of liberal media, thanks to boneheaded liberals pushing the likes of transgenderism. The latter looks like an agenda of a remnant (or dregs) of Obama lovers, and is very useful for winning elections when stacked beside other freakish policies obsessed over by sexual perverts / hunters in upper levels of the Democratic party. The liberals, who love to throw their "progressive" word around, are clearly progressing to sexual perversion for all. We once laughed at sex dolls, and here I can't go but a few days without the demented Drudge page reminding me that sex robots are the next liberal craze. It's not surprising that men who purchase sex robots would also engage in voter fraud. If you're sick on the one side, chances are your other side is sick too. When a person is sick, the whole person is sick. It's the opposite of holy.
Of course, Democrats will portray themselves as taking the high, moral road to win the electorate, precisely why the Republicans should shoot cannon balls into their eyes (instead of peas to the cheek) at this vulnerable time when it's obvious to all others that Democrats are fiends. They are on the mat; and the Republican wrestler sees the opportunity to pin him to the floor by both shoulders, yet, he goes: "oh no, what if I try but he turns me to the floor instead?" What do we call that? Right now, it's known as Jeff Sessions, the one afraid to carry out justice even though it's his calling.
Perhaps Sessions has a reason to be afraid, or perhaps he's got a debilitation such as chronic paranoia. Fine, we can excuse that without ill feelings, but if it keeps him from doing his job, he can step aside like a man, and let someone else do the work. If he won't, then we will get ill feelings toward him. Sessions has said that we should not jump to conclusions on the Strzok emails, and that there could be an innocent reason behind them. Way to go, Sessions, join the president's enemies, because this will serve to expose more from your department.
But get this. There are reports in Alabama and elsewhere suggesting that Jeff Sessions initiated a sting operation against Doug Jones for to catch his team in various voter-fraud situations. I'll believe it when I see the stinger. Right now, I don't even hear a buzz. One would think that, if Republicans are interested in revealing voter fraud in Alabama, they would have immediately released the buzz of news stories through Fox. But, so far, three days after the election, I see nothing at Fox. I saw the pea today, there was room and time for that, but no story on Alabama fraud. Shame Fox, how you are disgusted with God and his supporters.
And by Friday, Breitbart told of Trump's statement that Moore should accept defeat i.e. forget the recount. That was fast, Mr. Knife-in-the Back. But if Trump were in Moore's shoes now, I guarantee that he would be talking about the voter fraud, and therefore demanding a recount, and Fox would be vehement on exposing the voter fraud. This is the hypocrisy of the Republican establishment that offends Jesus Christ, and you who claim to follow Jesus need to recognize and oppose it. The Moore story has been excellent for making this Christ-versus-establishment point. It's a light shed on the wickedness of the sick parts of the Republican party.
For his Punishment on making this statement against Moore, Trump may soon find himself in a similar situation i.e. crying the blues about conspiratorial plots made against him. Let's not forget that Trump wanted to oust Moore from the start in order to not offend McConnell, for Trump needed the latter to help pass the tax-reform bill, which Trump is depending on for scoring his first major legislative achievement. The establishment is trying to vote the final vote in the next week or so before Alabama's senate seat goes to the Democrat, and this haste may prove to be the reckless killer of this bill. The most-notable part of this tax reform is that corporations get their taxes reduced to almost half. The only way that this can benefit the nation is where the corporations pass their tax savings on to consumers. Otherwise, if corporations don't reduce their prices for services and products, the lower and middle classes will need to pay more taxes (to make up for the reduced corporate taxes) without getting equal or greater money in return. If corporations don't reduce their prices, and if the middle class gets poorer for paying more taxes, how possibly can the economy grow?
The Republicans will argue that a growing economy (defined as more consumer spending) rakes in more taxes to more than make up for the corporate tax cut. But how will spending increase if prices don't go down, and where the middle class are made poorer by compensating for the corporate tax cut? It makes no sense. When Republicans cite the booming economy / stock market under Trump, that's the growing spending of corporations (to increase their size / profits), not the growth of the typical worker. The Trump-effect is to give corporations the confidence to grow larger, which is exactly the problem in this end-time planet. The rich who rule over us without God are going to become richer and more powerful. Do we celebrate this effect just because some corporate wealth trickles down into our mouths, the poor? Are we that compromised in our moral interests? Do Christians judge politics by how much money is involved?
Another way for corporations to show their appreciation for the tax cut is to increase employee wages, but corporations are more likely to increase CEO bonuses, for example, than give the savings to the blue-collar workers. It looks like a lose-lose for you and me, yet my fellow Christians have been celebrating the coming of Trump as though he were a savior. I fear that, the more the Christian has corporate status, the more he/she is inclined to love Trump...the corporate animal from the perspective of his own life's goals. This is what this president brought to the national table along with giving politically-active Christians the voices they would not have under the likes of Obama, but judging by his tweeting alone, i.e. absent the appropriate police and judicial action, he would leave the Democrat demon in a strongly-confident position four or eight years from now, able to eat Christians alive when it gets itself back in power. If "great again" pertains only to the stock market, it's nothing that Christians should be concerned with, let alone applaud. Our chief concern is the chief demon working through men, and they are gearing up their minions to blaspheme our Father, to minimize us, to persecute, hate and destroy us. Slap yourself in the face hard (come to your senses) if you think the rising stock market is a thing to celebrate.
The question now is whether God will enter Alabama's voter-fraud issue and force some revelations there. It is very possible. I predict that Fox won't get the exclusive stories, though, but will be left picking up the crumbs from other news orgs. On the 15th, townhall.com (Conservative news) has a cartoon making fun of Moore's recount effort. The establishment is not opposed only to Christian cowboys, so to speak, but to anyone who speaks as openly as Moore does about the dire need to apply God's high standards to the liberal invasion. The establishment decided that such Christians are toxic for election bids, because the liberal media and their supporters turn on the heat to passionate levels at election time when Republicans run such candidates.
Therefore, the establishment not only betrayed God before He was given enough time to topple these nasty liberals, but they chose leaders for themselves who have no faith (McCain is just one example, so far as I could tell), or claim to have faith but act politically like they don't (George Bush Jr = excellent example), or some form of twisted Christian like Mormon Romney. Between the runs of McCain and Romney, Republicans put up their number-one man, John Boehner, as speaker of the House (2011), a Catholic...though many merely born of Catholic parents are said to be Catholics whether they attend church or not. They didn't put up an evangelical, did they, even after learning that to snub evangelicals caused Obama to defeat McCain. (I've just learned that Jeff Flake is of Mormon background).
The religious-affiliation of all congressspeople, below, looks bogus because very few are marked as atheists or unchurched. Note that most Catholics are with the Democrats, shame, pope, you run a house of Christ-stabbers. Of the 25 marked, "Jewish," only one is a Republican (Lee Zeldin, NY). Shame, "Jews," traitors of the God of Moses. "But" Jewish" doesn't tell whether they are religious or not, and the list seems in-vain if it doesn't tell whether the people are serious or otherwise in their faith.
Bill O'Reilly, another Catholic, says it best for to make my point: "I'm not so sure that Rubio [Catholic Republican] did anything wrong [in trying to defeat Trump in the primaries]. It's that he just couldn't overcome the perception that many Republican voters have that you need somebody from the outside, number one, to punish the Republican establishment, but more importantly, to take it to Hillary Clinton." You can whiff-out O'Reilly's sentiments, that he loves the establishment that many Protestants have come to reject or even hate. Electing Trump was a score for the Christian message to the establishment not to mess with us anymore. But look, it lately attacked Roy Moore shamefully...because the wicked are wicked naturally, they can't help themselves. And to make it hurt even more, Trump himself campaigned against Moore...and then came sucking-up to the Christians (sheer fakery, sickening) when he and the establishment failed to oust Moore. It would have been better for Moore had Trump not visited Pensacola the day before the election.
Republicans will never front a middle-class man. Why is that? Why is the bench mark of both political parties the financial success of a man? Can we imagine God saying, "run only the fabulously wealthy as candidates for your rulers"? The election of Trump, a non-political man, proved that Christians can vote in a middle-class man, especially if all the Christians who refused to vote for Trump would vote for him. I am absolutely sure that a middle-class man can be much-more studied in, and more in-touch with, the political issues of the day than a billionaire who hasn't the time. Trump got elected even though he wasn't smart with conveying the issues until after his advisors trained him.
I didn't follow the election much at all, and don't know why Trump defeated Ted Cruz (after defeating Rubio), who is portrayed as a Christian, or, if you ask the liberal media, a false Christian. I don't know much about Cruz, but if he's innocent of the false-Christian charges brought against him by the New York Times and Washington Post, I wonder how many Christians were duped into repeating their lines. Best thing: never trust or read the liberal media. Don't let it put poison political darts into your head. If you think to yourself, "let's go see what the opposition media has to say in case it's true," do it at your own risk, because it will gladly serve up a crafty false reality.
Note that Trump chose a man claiming faith for his vice-president, for McCain chose a Christian to be his vice-president, a sign that the establishment is willing to use Christians (or perhaps phony Christians) to get the Christian vote. Do we like being treated like this? Does our Father have a plan to expose and punish the establishment? Probably. And some good punishment is to allow some bona fide Christians to defeat them. Let's see whether he allows Moore to pull off the victory.
To be fair on Trump, there may be some of the expected hope in him to derail some of the anti-Christian powers over us. For example, whether it's to his personal interest or not, he has courageously trounced American involvement in the climate-change scam. Part of this move may be to save government spending, a thing beneficial for his corporate tax cut. Part of the move may also be for his seeking voter blocs from oil and coal corporations, for example. But Trump may sincerely oppose climate change for the scam and money-grabber that it is. Whatever the motive, he has shown more than the willingness to buck against the world powers that Christians generally oppose. However, I don't believe he's done it to support Christians. Opposition to climate change is generally the will of Republicans and more-strictly the plot of liberals.
But Trump is a contradiction. NASA, part of liberal, global scams, and an anti-Christian propagandist, is loved by Trump. There are two explanations: 1) he doesn't have the mind's eyes to help him become consistent in his approach to a world view; 2) he's catering to voters. NASA would blame the decline in world temperatures on a "cold" sun in order to salvage the global-warming scam on behalf of all the scammers. Yet Trump wants to fund NASA in the future for vain projects i.e. a total waste of taxes...except that it can secure some votes for him. What do we call that? Buying votes with your money.
Let me tell you that I feel sorry for Sarah Sanders if she's a bona fide Christian. As Trump's press secretary, she is obliged to support EVERYTHING that Trump does and says. She is his mouth. I couldn't stand going against the grain of God's will for a mere man that doesn't even believe. How could Sarah take this job? While she has the platform to roll out the sentiments of Jesus at times, and also to expose her liberal enemies, she's also got to make everything Trump does and plan appear righteous, to justify her taking the job. I really do pray and hope for Sarah, that she comes out Spiritually restorable. With a breaking point, she's a real-tough cookie (good video), and, I think, she alters the real Trump, replacing him with a more-Christian / more-righteous one. In a way, this may challenge the president, and even move him, toward Christian values. Sarah will suffer defilement while supporting a defiled soul, but she may be willing to suffer injury if she can further God's work...in which case God may honor and support her efforts. Mike Huckabee (her father) is in the video above with Sarah, and he gives an answer (good enough?) as to how he and she can support a non-Christian president. Are the Huckabee's prioritizing America above Jesus? Probably not, hopefully not.
As you can see, The View was prepared to use Sarah's appearance to put out as serious fact some nasty / false anti-Trump propaganda. There's nothing new about this liberal tactic, but in this case we watch two professing Christians committed to protect the president from such attacks, and I'm not sure that Trump cares at all about the spiritual challenges that he himself besets upon Sarah. I can't imagine that Trump chose Sarah for any other reason than the round recognition in Christian-political circles of her father. That could be deemed his using Sarah for his own re-election purposes. We may feel that this is better than nothing, but the real issue is whether God is for or against Sarah's job description.
Sarah was not Trump's first choice. When he felt he needed to let his first press secretary go, he chose her. In a way, it looks hopeful, because she's in charge of the very president's image day-to-day. It shows that he's not nearly disgusted with entrusting his image to an open believer (however, I don't know Sarah very much, and have no knowledge / evidence for what sort of believer she is). I don't watch her press appearances on YouTube because I don't want to be defiled more than I need to be with this online work, by the liberal stupids who pepper her with loaded questions. But the tough cookie took the job to deal with these stupids month after month. Here's Sarah getting peppered by the stupidest of the stupids, and needing to defend Trump at the same time, afterwhich, while disheartened by the questioners, she mentions God as the perfect role model:
I say that God can work with this woman if she fights her enemies in His Name. Patience, and consistency, will cause Him to act.
Back to Rosenstein, where he's questioned by the Republican, DeSantis, a Catholic. The latter asks whether Rosenstein knows who paid for the dossier, and while Rosenstein says he believes he does know, he refuses to tell the oversight committee who/what it was that sponsored it. DeSantis scolds him because it's not classified to tell the committee, or even to tell the public, who it was that paid for this dossier. After all, the dossier is out in the news, and Democrats are still framing it as a reliable document. So, if Rosenstein cared at all for the public perception of this issue, he should want to clarify to the people how reliable or unreliable the document is, and whether the Clintons did pay for it. But Rosenstein, after he is scolded (mildly, in my opinion), doesn't get asked a second time, in a stern demand, from DeSantis. Why not? What was DeSantis' problem for not objecting hard / harshly to a no-answer for an answer?
It should be obvious that the congressional Republicans are weak if after all that's been discovered so far, they are afraid to get harsh or play harder. DeSantis could have looked Rosenstein in the eyes, asking him in public whether he would answer the question properly / appropriately in a closed (non-publicized) session? That would put Rosenstein into a pickle, because he now needs to come up with a different reason for his no-answer. It is such a no-brainer for Republicans to use such a method for exposing all who refuse to answer, yet the Republicans don't use it. What's this telling us? It often appears that the Republicans in charge of oversight don't truly wish to have the revelations revealed. Does the deep state have means to always assure that one of their own get's to the top of Republican committees?
The Uranium-One scandal was discovered by Republicans when John Boehner (Catholic) was the Speaker, yet he didn't bother doing an investigation. How can we explain such a thing, and is Sessions now slow to touch this scandal for the same reason as Boehner had? Why has the Uranium-One story, the one most threatening to Mueller, gone from the news suddenly with the onset of the Strzok story? Did Mueller work with the inspector general to leak the Strzok-Page story, to get Uranium-One out of the news? If so, the leakers probably hoped that the Strzok-Page emails would not be brought to light. I can't recall who it was that made those emails come to light. My best recollection is an anonymous source from Fox.
The [Strzok-Page] messages were part of D.O.J. inspector general Michael Horowitz’s ongoing probe into how the F.B.I. handled its investigation into both Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server, and the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia. Originally released to key members of the House Judiciary Committee prior to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s hearing, the texts were also shared with select members of the media, a move The New York Times called “highly unusual”(vanityfair.com).
Perhaps the NY Times wasn't chosen as one of those who received the leaks. And perhaps Vanity Fair is not putting the word correctly to say "shared." That term suggests no monkey business, but a willingness by the committee to release the data. On the other hand, the proper word may be "leaked"...against the will of the committee. In fact, the article quotes the DoJ spokeswoman as saying: "But those disclosures were not authorized by the department." And it says further: "Jerrold Nadler, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and two other Democrats, have asked for a full review of the decision to leak the texts to the press." Ain't this great? I'm hoping it's from Perfection, and that He has more for to shock the Jewish, Hell-bound Nadlers of congress. Before Nadler opens his mouth to speak, Perfection has seen from one end of the universe to the other. Don't fool with Him. The people want to know what Strzok and Page said to one another for to ambush a presidential candidate. We all want to know how the wicked operate, the details. What is Nadler's problem that the people can't know? Is he part of a secret cabal?
Shame, Vanity Fair, for trying to ridicule the Trump side, as though the emails have nothing of great consequence to add to this scandal. Page and Strzok were, in the least, conspirators wanna-bees, to destroy Trump, and we have yet to discover whether murder was their option. Let's look into it, deeper, shall we Mr. Nadler?
The article says flatly that the inspector general wanted the messages to be seen by congress, but I'm suspicious of the inspector general and the motive behind this disclosure. It could be damage control, to release things that won't land Strzok in jail when there are emails that could, which emails were not sent to the committee.
Surely, the congress, with a Republican president who is himself the target of both Rosenstein and the dossier, are able to cause Rosenstein the pain he not only deserves, but needs. But where is this pain? So long as Rosenstein can snub his nose at Congress like this, others will too. In fact, Rosenstein learned it from others. If the Republicans think they are too weak to launch an all-out revolt against such rebellion in high places, then they are, in my eyes, complicit with the rebels and frauds. I don't call them their opponents, because there is a chance that many of the Republicans, including DeSantis, are secretly of the same brotherhood cloth as those they pretend to oppose. I assume that when the fakers practice faking enough, they can learn to do it with expertise and passion.
After DeSantis has his time up, a Democrat comes up to bat for Mueller. After saying that Mueller is a Republican (on paper, anyway), the Democrat asks Rosenstein whether it necessarily makes any Republican unethical if he donates to the Republican party? Rosenstein's gives only a sharp, "no," as though he were the questioner's accomplice. But if he were a man of integrity, Rosenstein would clarify that, out of 17 lawyers that Mueller is employing in his special council, only one is known to be a Republican donor (some people donate to both parties), and more than half are known Democrat donors. Lou Dobbs says that no one has been able to confirm even one Republican on that list of 17. In other words, Rosenstein lets the Democrat make his cheap point even while Rosenstein knows the point is not justified in the Mueller case. The Democrat (utilizing tunnel vision) is not asking the question in a vacuum, but Rosenstein answers as though he were. An appropriate answer would be, "No, but at least most of Mueller's team is pro-Clinton and therefore suspect as anti-Trump, making your question misleading." No one expects a statement like this out of Rosenstein now. His anti-Trump colors are now on the table for all to see. I've yet to hear anything from him where he even remotely sounds like he's defending Trump.
The only way to defeat liberals completely is to broadly and deeply use bona fide Christians in power. When the Democrat machine sets itself against bona fide Christians, God can act on their behalf, and, of course, God is a fly on the wall, the greatest spy. But when Christians sought such powers, they were bumped down even by fellow conservatives, because some of them are Godless. Therein is the problem, now creating a lose-lose, cold civil war. Neither side can win when both reject Jesus for their platforms. Both become reckless trains aimed at one another. But with God and Christian leadership in government, there would be a winner and a loser.
In a poll this week: "POLL: 54 % SAY MUELLER’S TIES TO COMEY ARE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST". Only 54 percent? That's because the passengers in one full train are denying the truth. But where 54-percent truly reject Mueller, it's beneficial to Republicans, because that's more than the voting percentage of the winning candidate in a close race. The Democrat cause at this time is therefore to fix Mueller's reputation, yet, that looks dim. Instead, one expects political fists to Mueller's face in the coming weeks...explaining why Democrats are painting Republicans as going after Mueller brutishly at this time.
The West doesn't jail its police chiefs. The police is a brotherhood, explaining why Trump is portraying almost all FBI employees as great this week, because Trump doesn't want the brotherhood to gang up on him. Fraidy-cat do-nothing. If the FBI leadership is corrupt, don't we expect that they will promote their kind from low levels to mid and higher levels? Therefore, the entire FBI is infected by now, and the whole batch needs to be sifted through a filter to catch corruption. It's ridiculous to say, as too many are saying, that 99-percent of FBI people are unlike Strzok. Some 30 percent of Americans are Strzok-like liberals, nasty to the core, devoid of morality, and so why shouldn't 30 percent or more of the FBI be likewise? That's roughly the expected number even if the liberals don't stack the FBI with one another, but we can expect much of that too, directly from the highest leaders of the cabal, because they need the FBI to rule as they wish to rule. Get yourself a brain, Mr. Trump, it will serve you well.
We already know that the current FBI chief thinks that FBI employees are fabulous, a claim to be read as: there will be no internal probe to sift out corruption. And Trump, by agreeing with Wray that FBI employees are great and wonderful, is not bucking Wray for an internal review. In the situation now before the American people, it's not enough to say that the inspector general is the one who probes internal corruption. It's necessary for Sessions, Wray and Rosenstein to help the inspector general conduct his probes, and moreover it's Trump's clean-swamp job to demand from Wray a probe or check-up on whether the inspector general is himself compromised.
Jay Sekulow got good air time on Hannity this past week, and Hannity, who has routinely denied a deep state as the whim of conspiracy theorists, is now admitting it between the lines by what he reports and argues, yet he won't put the admission into clear and simple words...probably because he feels that his own image, as a reliable opinionator, is more important. Come on, Hannity, say it: there are conspiratorial groups in government seeking to control the White House and the Congress, and there are non-government orgs and persons, too innumerable to count, existing on a global field, who conspire with the infiltrating, government-planted conspirators...whose job it is to collectively undermine the opposing elected authority. The Democratic party is exactly a chief agent of the undermining (destructive) infiltrators. It took the Obama reign coupled with its aftermath to open the minds of the Hannitys of the conservative news shows, the ones who, for years under Bush and Obama, closed the minds of their listeners, thus allowing the deep state to become more entrenched. Hannity should move over and allow a better man to take his one-hour spot, one with keener insight. Here's the video:
Will all the news people who ridiculed "conspiracy theorists" now do less than the appropriate job in exposing the conspirators because they, the news people, feel embarrassed to admit the conspiracies? We hope not. The theorists forgive you, stupids, just move along and get educated now, and start exposing it for a change. But I say that the Hannitys will find a way to make a distinction between the conspiracy theories they claimed to be non-existent versus what's now being exposed as reality. Well, unfortunately, it's called reality only after its exposed, and a theory before it's exposed, but keen minds were able to unravel what the Hannitys failed to admit to in their gross negligence. For the keen minds, there was enough already to make the exposure, but for the Hannitys, they played the majority tune for fear of societal / occupational repercussion. They hid the reality for fear of the backlash, same as the do-nothing Republican congress. This is what the Hannitys have given the country, denial of the devil, and growth of the devil thereby.
Some of the keen minds accused that the Hannitys were part of the conspirators, and maybe they were more correct than not, we'll need to wait and see. I have been surprised by Fox, actually, roundly and freely pouring out the stories we've seen the past week or two. I'm not sure what's going on with that, at the top, but my guess is that Fox will admit to conspirators when the latter go against the Republican establishment. That seems like a no-brainer conclusion. But what if the devil comes and alters Fox so that it becomes a Democrat / liberal tool? It could happen, when God turns his back on the Republican scum that rejects His people.
Hannity downgraded Roy Moore and essentially asked him to step down when Hannity failed to see that the sexual accusations were faked. This is why Fox needs a keener mind than his. He presents his shows well, and we Christians all hope that he destroys the wicked enemy, but he's not yet fully conscious of the deep-state's capabilities and tricks, because he's rejected the deep state's existence. He hasn't let the full picture sink in, and his neglect of Jesus naturally causes him to sidestep the existence of satan and his fallen angels. He's lame, he's not playing with a full deck, if he's not willing to acknowledge demons in the midst of humanity. I've been doing it for almost 40 years, which has resulted in some insight as per the truer conditions of this world. God has made me more aware, thank you for that. I cannot only save myself many griefs by this Gift, but perhaps save others from the devil altogether. Hannity has had decades to save Americans from the devil, yet I've never heard him utter Jesus' name, let alone the devil.
By allowing the Washington Post to get away with the political destruction of Roy Moore, Hannity and similar others encouraged the Democrat wicked to keep that tactic in their bags of tricks, and I'm starting to hear that they are about to try it against Trump once again. If that happens, let there be a call for the removal of Trump, because he directed Moore not to do the recount. What's good for the gander is good for the goose, Mr. Trump.
We shouldn't think that, just because God's justice has been put on hold for a few decades, while allowing the wicked to be empowered, that it will always be this way. When the time comes for God to act in justice once again, it will be vivid, the way things should be, with the wicked cut off and shamed left and right, and down the middle too. The righteous will then get their bell ring, signalling the time to arise once again.
I have a better idea than Hannity on how the Republican deep state conducted 9-11, because he has yet to believe that it was an inside job. I am therefore more qualified to speak against that deep state then he is, by far, for he supports that deep state unawares. And this is the problem with the West as a whole: too many people duped by deep-state agents telling the people to ridicule conspiracy theorists. It doesn't matter that the theorists sometimes get it wrong, or include some pretty nutty minds and a host of political liberals too. Some theorists are very intelligent and world-smart, wanting only the truth. I can understand that, it's not difficult. A person wants to nail down the sort of world he/she lives in, and to fight its corruption. Nothing mysterious there. What matters is that they are trying their best with what little the major reporters give them to work with. The shame hangs from the talking heads, the world-class reporters. But let's forgive them and move on, if they repent. Otherwise, we are still stuck in the mud, spinning our wheels, going nowhere.
Go ahead, world-class reporter, deny the shadow-government reality. But when God exposes it, you will look like a fool if you don't cover it, and a fool if you do. That's because you've been a fool. You chose to listen to the gangsters rather than the people concerned with the destruction of the gangsters. And Trump was reverting exactly to this type of fool. Whereas he started off with some promise of destroying the shadow government, he quickly chose the easy path once in office. But, now, before the first year is ended, not even Trump can remain the fool any longer, for the conspirators are creeping under his clothes. He can feel them crawling on his very skin, scorpions looking for the best vein for the kill. There's no denying it anymore, and even the Hannity fool is blowing the trumpet daily, calling the fighters to war.
Trump has been afraid of rocking the media boat more than he needs to. He rocks it only when it serves his own purposes, but he has walked around the general destruction of society, like the Pharisee who left the beaten man bloody on the road. The deep state abused society, and hijacked it, but Trump is too busy with himself to deal with it. It's not as though dealing with it is difficult for a president. He has so many workers to do the work. Trump needs only to fire Sessions and Wray, and to install two other men with fury in their hearts against the deep state. It's got to be done now, before the deep state replaces him as president, but Trump walks around the beaten man, leaving him bloody on the street.
This past week, the president said he's not going to fire Mueller. You see, he's afraid of backlash. He takes pop-shots against it to make a show of fight. Eric Holder, seeing this weakness, has warned Trump should he fire Mueller. Mr. Trump, go ahead and fire Mueller, and then start a special council against Holder. But, no, the president hasn't the tools to do it, because he won't replace Wray and Sessions. There are piles of men beaten on the road by the gangsters, but the TweetyBird walks around them, and goes on his way...to Twitter to take pop-shots. Holder is telling you to dance to his tune, Mr. President, and you're dancing. Your voters are starting to wonder about you.
Take my advice, Mr. President. Leave Hannity alone to his own weaknesses, and go down to Roy Moore, confess your sin to him, and help him out with the voter-fraud issue, to see whether or not voter fraud robbed him of his rightful place in the Senate. If you don't do this, then let voter fraud defeat you in 2020. You see, by your inaction, you allow corruption to roll on, until it rolls over you. How possibly can you be so daft as not to understand this? It's you that corruption hates the most at this time. You are the chief target. Whatever you permit to roll over Moore will roll over you too. In the meantime, mountains of citizens have been beaten and robbed, and lie bloody on the streets, under your presidency. But, thank God, you think, you're going to pass tax reductions for the rich. Wow, what a man you are, just like a rich Pharisee.
Peter Was Willing to Die for Jesus
Peter, the weakling, who, hours after telling Jesus that he was ready to die with him, pretended he didn't know Him...because, apparently, he didn't want to become arrested too. But was he really a weakling? I say he wasn't. Peter had other ideas on how he would die for Jesus, and he proved (sort of) that he was ready to do so when he swung his sword at the head of one of the men who intruded into the olive grove. Peter was going for the kill, wasn't he? How else does one cut off someone's ear unless he's going for the kill? And in doing so, we might say that Peter was risking his life, especially as the disciples had but two swords / knives while the throng coming against him was probably better armed.
So what happened to Peter? Why did he later look so timid until the cock's crow? I say he was confused. He would fight with Jesus against mortal enemies, especially because Jesus had the power to do miracles. But when Jesus allowed himself to be arrested without resistance, Peter couldn't wrap his head around it. He probably thought it was a waste of his life to get arrested. He probably detected that Jesus was in serious trouble. He may have heard Jesus get punched out (at Annas' place). They probably secured the biggest, meanest thugs they could get hold of.
So, Jesus went to a terrible death, simply giving himself up to it, like a lamb to the slaughter. It's better to die fighting, we might say, where there's at least a chance of surviving. But giving yourself up to enemies that mock you while killing you, unbearable, especially when you want nothing more from them than their love. "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how I wish I could have you under my wings, as a hen cares for its chicks." And for this, they killed him with evil plotters and false witnesses. They were the New-York and Washington Democrats, weren't they?
When Jesus finally came out, at about daybreak, they were sending him away to another trial before Pilate. Peter's all-night fears were verified there, where it became obvious that the Jews wanted Jesus executed. The Father wanted another house (the Romans) to condemn itself, I think, besides that of the high priests (Annas and Caiaphas). Pilate argues in the face of the Jews, saying that Jesus is not guilty of anything worthy of death. In fact, Pilate doesn't see a criminal of any sort in Jesus, and has evidence of nothing against him, yet Pilate has him whipped severely, anyway, and beaten, just as though Pilate was a typical, brutal Roman.
Pilate then digs a deeper condemnatory hole for himself, telling a bloodied Jesus (covered in wounds) that he has the power to free him or to crucify him (so free Him, blockhead, if he's innocent). Plus, it was the Jews who wanted Him crucified; Pilate had the power to choose an easier method of execution, but hands Jesus over to this method even while Jesus has sharp pains from the whip, the thorns, and the fists to his face. How possibly could men treat a man like Jesus with this brutality? What unreasoning bulls can they be? Never did He start an uprising, but got his followers by performing miracles and teaching as one who really knew God. Does such a man deserve even a beating?
Because He died this way, I can avoid a shameful death, and the shameful death goes to the houses of royal Israel and imperial Rome. Did you notice that the rise of national Israel (20th century) was fairly contemporary with the rise of the proto-EU empire?
The funny thing is, Pilate seemed to be convinced that Jesus was a king. If you read the Crucifixion account in the Gospel of John, Pilate becomes alarmed when Jesus confirms that he's a king. He takes Jesus alone and speaks to him concerning this, and Jesus speaks to him things that Pilate cannot receive. And when Pilate takes Jesus before the Jews, later, he says, "Here's your king," implying that the Jews should honor him as such. What put that move into Pilate's head? Finally, after he gives into the Jews, he has a sign installed above Jesus' head: "JESUS OF NAZARETH, KING OF THE JEWS." Apparently bewildered, he was determined to pass Jesus off as a king. By the way, to whom did Pilate speak to discover that Jesus was of Nazareth?
Latest on Syrian ISIS
Russia this week has been claiming an end to the ISIS caliphate in Syria, possibly as a tactic to oppose greater American military presence / action in Syria.
Russian President Vladimir Putin exhibited his growing diplomatic clout with a lightning tour through the Middle East on Monday...
Along the way, he announced a withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria, presided over the signing of a $21 billion plan to build a nuclear power plant in Egypt, and called President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel “counterproductive” and “destabilizing,” a criticism he leveled without mentioning Trump by name.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/putin-makes-first-visit-to-syria-lauds-victory-over-isis-and-announces-withdrawals/2017/12/11/f75389de-de61-11e7-8679-a9728984779c_story.html?utm_term=.aca3e37cb4ce (CIA media).
In other words, with Russia withdrawing to a degree, signalling the near-end of ISIS, Putin may be preparing a stance where he can later point the finger at any escalated American presence / action in Syria. Without some escalation, Assad's future as the Syrian leader is more assured. However, Assad has taken a huge beating, and is not in much composure to fight against Israel. In fact, even before the Syrian civil war, Assad was not predicted to fight Israel. But the situation as it now stands, ironically enough for the West and for Israel, is more dangerous to Israel than before ISIS was propped up. That's my claim, anyway, where the Sunni may take up the battle against Israel, which can include many Syrians whether or not Assad joins the battle.
With the Sunni fighters subdued now, and with the passing of some time, it's possible that Sunni terror against the Shi'ites (includes Iran and Assad himself) will subside. That quelled situation can cause the two to join forces for the common cause of saving Jerusalem from the Netanyahu-Trump duo. I paint this picture in case it happens that way, because I'm always looking for possible ways that prophecy can begin. I spoke on this prophecy (Daniel 11:21-31) in the last update, in case you are interested, and will repeat some of it (red ink) at the end of this update, and others to come.
As we can see, Putin predictably chose to side against Trump on the Jerusalem-capital issue. It shows that Putin's priority is not Israel, and we can guess the reason; Israel is viewed as an American satellite. The thing is, Putin could have said nothing about the issue, seeing that Trump now wants to test some friendship with him. Yet Putin chose to speak out, as though wishing to openly show that his favoritism toward the Arabs is more important (to him) than friendship with Trump. Part of these sentiments can be from the bad treatment Putin received from much of the West in the last years of Obama, and partly because Trump's bid to befriend Putin has been on the cold side to date. But there may also be some oil scheme behind it. I hate to be critical of everyone, but I've got to treat all reasonable possibilities.
Putin came out to show that he's not upset with Trump, even if he is a little: "Russian President Vladimir Putin said on [December 14] the United States was in the grip of a fabricated spymania whipped up by President Donald Trump's opponents but he thought battered U.S.-Russia relations would recover one day. Putin, who said he was on first name terms with Trump, also praised the U.S. president for what he said were his achievements" (Reuters). Put it this way, it doesn't look like Putin, who's running again for the presidency, is in the mood to support anti-Jerusalem riots with Iranians and Arabs.
Everything at this point looks like a Russian opportunity to enlarge a political umbrella over the rest of the Middle-East i.e. outside of Syria. I don't know whether Putin is entertaining such things, but it's reasonably possible. As we just saw, there is a Russian nuclear deal going on with Egypt, which opens the way for good relations in other areas while sticking a tongue out at the United States. I don't necessarily need to use that phrase, but it makes my point well that the United States may be sore that it didn't get the contract with Egypt, or at least sore that Russia did.
In the meantime, Trump announced this week that he wants to start the wheels toward a new manned adventure to the moon, and even to Mars. Putin laughs. The Russians know that a man cannot be landed on the moon. Yet, the Americans are apparently starting a new hoax to scare the Russians into thinking that the USA has the techno-superiority over Russia i.e. to make the Russians believe that the USA also has weapons superiority. But, Putin laughs, I guarantee you. It actually makes America look weak to Russia, that it needs to feign another moon landing.
I was surprised to see this BBC video on what it purports to be a deal between the West and Raqqa's ISIS to escort the latter out of the city. I usually view the BBC as a deep-state media, and so why would this media want to show this secret deal so convincingly with pictures? At first, I thought that the BBC had something so juicy it could not resist breaking the story. But at the end of the video, we find the topic turning to foreign ISIS fighters making their way into Europe via Turkey, though no evidence is given for that part. In other words, this could be a British-government, con-job video to explain a rash of West-staged terror acts yet to take place in Britain and other parts of Europe. Here's the video:
I'm not suggesting that the deal wasn't made, or that the convoys didn't leave Raqqa, but that the deep-state used the event to promise terror in Europe, the purpose of which is to give the EU more spy powers over the peoples...for whatever future plots they have for them. Of course, greater spy powers are largely to protect themselves from enemies of their own kind i.e. not Arabs. Below is the same story from RT (November 14), suggesting or claiming that ISIS left Syria altogether, though the video mentions the BBC story, which may be fake where it has the fighters leaving Syria:
The BBC showed the convoys full of weapons (or at least this was the claim), more than the fighters could use to protect themselves for their trip. Would Turkey allow ISIS trucks full of weapons to enter the country? How damaging to Turkey would that be if news got out? In other words, it makes more sense that the convoy snuck into some other area of Syria...and the BBC may have been a part of the deal, to mask where the fighters truly went. The BBC said the trucks went down some dark road (why dark? Is it dark in the sunshine too?), into the desert, and that's the last it tracks it, giving us the impression that the fighters simply disappeared down that mystery road. Yet the BBC didn't reveal the name of the road. The BBC apparently pretended to get the information from the locals to that point, in which case the locals would have known the road's name. BBC, liar. For if it knew the road, it should have been part of the story. And other locals down that road would have seen the trucks too. Right? Yes. So the BBC gave only part of the story, and ended with the terrorists in Turkey, with sights on Europe.
By the way. I'm not going to wish you a merry Christmas because I don't celebrate the holiday. No, I don't belong to Mormons or JW's or any other cult. This holiday has been infested with pagan themes by demonic dogs, and has a background in Vatican satanism. Besides, Jesus was not born in December. But I will wish you a merry Christ, every month of the year. Yes, don't forget to find reasons for rejoicing in Jesus, and let it show on your face at times, even though this world tends to give everyone frowns.
Repeat From the Previous Update if You Didn't Read It
...The good news is that it's very difficult for them to move from a credit / debit card to a skin-based method of purchasing without first having it out as a trial balloon = optional basis. In that way, we at least get to know that the tribulation is close. Or can we? Not necessarily. What if the optional period lasts for 20 or 30 years? How can that help us to avoid the pitfall of buying foods and firewood too early, wasting much of our money?
I have a better idea. When the optional skincode is in use, and when it's spreading to the point that can be deemed prophetic fulfillment, we then need to watch Middle-East prophecy. And the thing to look for is the fulfillment of Daniel 11:21-25. Unfortunately, these few verses do not state the length of time from start to finish of the events therein, but they culminate in a successful invasion on Egypt from a small power starting in the very Syrio-Iraqi area that ISIS ruled a few years ago. They are now saying that ISIS has been defeated to more than 90 percent it's previous territory. Iraq announced this week that their war is over. And the Russia military said this past week that ISIS is finished in Syria, though Teresa May disagreed, of course.
The five verses tell that a rejected one will seize, by craft, a region between Baghdad and Antioch. This was the domain of the ancient Seleucids, and the man I refer to, introduced at verse 21, is shown to be an extension of the Seleucids. Prophecy writers, especially the erroneous pre-tribulationists, insist that verses 21-25 pertain to an ancient Seleucid king (Antiochus IV), but the wiser reader will see that the same king at verse 21 is the one at verse 31 while 31 is definitely the end-time anti-Christ spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24:15, and by Daniel at 9:27. Therefore, God slips over from the ancient situation to the end-time situation at verse 21, and seems into be saying that the territory ruled by the ancient Seleucids will be ruled by the one in 21. It's a perfect description of the area ruled by ISIS a few years, which indeed started as a small power, relatively speaking. And it's leader is now smaller still, almost wiped out, begging whether the anti-Christ of 21 will come in to fill the vacuum.
The five verses tell us that the king of 21, before he becomes the king, is rejected by the voters. It's made clear that he does not rise to power by the regular method, but seizes his kingdom-to-be through craft, and then pays off his small body of soldiers in order to grow into a larger band of military thieves. He grows because God gives him success (gleaned from other scriptures). Whereas ISIS fighters have been demoralized by loss after loss, steadily, the one of 21 will find success, and therefore the fighters will gravitate to him. For all we know, he's worming himself into power now amongst certain fighters.
The five verses tell us that he rises thanks to military losses of two allies. He takes the opportunity to attract the two losers to himself. In the past, I identified the two losers as the Iraqi Baathists and al-Qaeda, but it may be time to update that view soon. It's best to just wait and see. We might now theorize that the two losers are ISIS and al-Qaeda, or ISIS and the Iraqi Baathists (they had both conquered Mosul together).
However, in the past, I identified one of the losers as the Iraqi nation as a whole, which, at the time, was the Baathists. It seemed logical that the Iraqi nation was one of the losers because it was defeated by a military flood, which is found in verse 22. But if it was not yet prophetic fulfillment, then another view is possible where the official Iraqi nation is not one of the two losers. I apologize for the complications. One thing seems certain, that he takes a kingdom where he's not been granted the official position, and this sounds as though he takes an official nation, yet, on the other hand, ISIS can now be viewed as a nation.
As things now stand, his kingdom may be what ISIS once held, and not Baghdad. But once the details of the prophecy get too hard to decipher, can the prophecy still act as a solid Sign? If there are too many interpretations, how can we bank on it's acting as our prime Sign that the anti-Christ is involved? It just seems logical that the swept-up (defeated) army of 22 is the same neo-Seleucid kingdom which he seizes, but, perhaps, we need to allow for their not being the same entity. The rise in the neo-Seleucid empire seems certain, but does it include Baghdad? Does he take Baghdad too, or not? I once thought so, and ISIS did in fact try to take it. We can assume that the Iraqi Baathists want Baghdad back.
The good news is, there is no way to interpret Daniel's "king of the south" (verse 25) other than Egypt. Therefore, in whatever specific way the neo-Seleucid kingdom goes into the anti-Christ's hand, we will have verse 25 as the SOLID SIGN we can depend on. Hopefully, verse 25 is fulfilled, as I think it will (gambling here), as many as three years before the woman in Revelation 12 needs wilderness survival. If, when Egypt is defeated, we can look back and work out a good case of fulfillment for verses 21-23, we will probably be in the last seven years.
The best human prediction, at this time in history, for the details behind the attack on Egypt is that the anti-Christ stands behind Gaza, supporting it against Egypt. The more that the United States receives the blessings of Egypt, the more that the anti-Christ may try to defeat Egypt. If the Egyptian government accepts Jerusalem as the Israeli capital without kicking up dust, it compliments this prophecy. In this picture, the anti-Christ is not an American, and not supported by America, though his support from Obama and other world-class liberals can be half expected, perhaps even from the CIA.
I assume that verses 22-23 are an alternative explanation (i.e. a repeat of the situation with extra detail) for verse 21:
21 And a rejected one shall stand up in his place, and they shall not give to him the honor of the kingdom; but he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom with smooth talk.
22 And the forces of the overflow will be swept from before him, and they will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant.
23 And after they join him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people.
It appears that the end of 21 is repeated in 23 with slightly different terms. For example, the "smooth talk" of verse 21 becomes "deceit" in verse 23. And the "enter" of verse 21 becomes "he will come and be strong with a few people" in verse 23. In fact, note the comparison below:
VERSE 21: "he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom smoothly."
VERSE 24: "With ease, even into the rich places of the province, he will enter."
I think it's wise, at this point, to theorize that the two broken entities that were run-down militarily are those of ISIS and its main ally. In other words, just in case this is correct, we would be looking for a man, not at war, to worm his way into a leadership position that includes leadership over the remnants of ISIS and/or their Baathist partners. The Western media may not publish this because it may tend to publish only war reports, and, besides, such a three-way partnership may be kept under the radar by the parties for some time.
For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God
Table of Contents