Previous Update

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)

July 10 - 16, 2018

The Burkman News Conference on Seth Rich's Murder
Faked Rocket Landings by SpaceX

A few minutes after Trump announced the candidate for the supreme court, I came across a Still-Report video telling that Jack Burkman is holding a press conference on the morrow, July 8. Burkman is a Seth-Rich investigator attacked a few months ago by a government operative, Kevin Doherty. The latter was arrested on lesser charges than he deserves according to Burkman's report of the event. This story is on youtube; do a search for, Doherty burkman, or see this Zolna video for a few details:

As reported by World Net Daily, a witness is prepared to disclose the two Rich murderers on June 10.

Burkman hired Doherty to help find Seth's murderer. The attempted murder claimed by Burkman makes Doherty look like a mole for the killers, yet Burkman is not advertising Doherty as a mole. At first, I thought that Burkman was playing naive, not wanting to bring the FBI down onto his back, for which reason he portrayed his would-be murderer as one having merely a grudge against him. No one else would take that position in such a case as this; why is Burkman advancing it?

Newsweek had an article:

On March 13, as Burkman was retrieving what he said were materials from a source in an investigation into since-fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, he said he was shot multiple times and run over with an SUV. The vehicle got away, and Burkman was hospitalized for three days.

Ouch. Burkman seems to be very brave. And, wow, McCabe might figure into this. It's such a juicy story, can it all be real? "Initially, Burkman attributed the incident to his McCabe investigation. 'This attack is a direct result of my hunt for the truth regarding FBI corruption,' he said in his statement last week. 'I've been working with a confidential source within the agency for the past month and was only at the Marriott to pick up documents the source left for pickup.'" Wow, an actual FBI whistle blower / leaker, and what looks like an FBI-sponsored murder attempt. How did we all miss this news?

The Newsweek article doesn't tell how the man who got away with his attack car was caught as Kevin Doherty. It's baffling. Nor does it tell Doherty's fate thus far. The story has not only been hushed, but it's very incomplete to begin with. We fully expect to hear how Burkman and the police knew that the would-be killer was his previous partner.

The police were complicit with Rich's murders, and here's further evidence where Doherty is not being charged with attempted murder. Instead, he's charged with Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony, and two counts of Malicious Wounding. Burkman claims that he was shot twice, and that Doherty tried to run him over twice, but the police are calling it malicious wounding??? Something stinks. "The New American reached out to the detective assigned to the case, as well as the department’s public information officer, to ask why Doherty is not being charged with attempted murder. As of this writing [March 22], we have not received a response."

Burkman did not portray the attempted murder as one from the FBI / authorities, even though it's made to appear as such. But why? And how could such a juicy spy story have no media legs?

Burkman sent a letter to the chairman of Homeland Security, on February 20, 2017, telling that he thinks Russia was behind Seth's murder. This charge is so ridiculous that Burkman looks like a fake Rich investigator whose task is to join real investigators to spy on, and ruin, them. In an article about a week after the above date, Daily Mail said that Burkman had an unnamed source who believes high-level Russians killed Rich. This sounds like invented garbage as the DNC (Democratic election machine) would have invented it.

He supposedly got shot twice, ran over twice, but spent only three days in the hospital??? It seems unfathomable that the police would not issue a public statement on such a crime. The Washington Examiner has the story too, but way too short. I don't see follow-up from the Examiner. According to Burkman's own story, Doherty did not get these documents. We assume that Burkman has them. It's just all so juicy:

In February, Burkman had offered a $25,000 reward for FBI whistleblowers who could provide damaging information, and shortly thereafter, a man claiming to be a senior FBI official reached out with supposed information about then-agency deputy director Andrew McCabe. McCabe was fired last week [article dated March 22, 2018) after an internal investigation revealed that he had lied about his interactions with the news media, allegations McCabe denies and claims are politically motivated.

The source gave Burkman two packets of emails under a cone in a Rosslyn, Va. hotel garage, which he said “looked super real,” according to The Post.

As Burkman went to the garage to retrieve more supposed documents on McCabe, he said he was shot in the thigh and buttocks and ran over twice by an SUV.

It's curious if they staged it while involving McCabe. They didn't need to do it that way. Why would they? Someone might say that Burkman is not really an insider, but just a dopey Democrat who thereby tends to lean Russian killers rather than from the DNC. But he claims to be a right-wing Republican. Is that faked?

Let's bring this story now to June 9, yesterday as I write here, as per an article by WND:

...Jack Burkman, a Washington-based lawyer and lobbyist, told the Gateway Pundit blog: “We believe that we have reached the beginning of the end of the Seth Rich murder investigation. After two long hard years of work, we have a witness who is prepared to identify the two killers of Seth Rich.”

Burkman told the blog in an exclusive interview on Sunday that one of the culprits identified by the witness is an agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration and the other is an agent for the ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Burkman said the witness has conclusive evidence that will bring the killers to justice.

...Burkman told the blog Frank Whalen, a retired NYPD detective sergeant, found the witness.

“We found him through working with a retired New York City detective, who found him and brought him to us. We have thoroughly vetted this witness and we believe in this witness,” Burkman said. “He has evidence that substantiates his claims but it will be revealed slowly. This witness is in great fear of his life – that’s why we are going with disguising him, disguising his voice and everything about him.”

This is very similar to involving McCabe. Burkman no longer appears as an insider due to his claim that government operatives were behind the murder. And, we now see, it wasn't the Russians after all. Should we trust Burkman with this? Repeat from WND: Burkman told the blog Frank Whalen, a retired NYPD detective sergeant, found the witness. It is not credible that Burkman, in a case where the government is fingered as the killer, would reveal a high-level source in the New-York police department. Unless Whalen wants to be revealed, that is. We now expect the major Washington and New-York media to hound Whalen until he tells what he knows, but that's not happening. Where's Fox for this story? This is so deep-state conspiracy, how could Hannity resist looking at it?

What about Sessions? What's he doing to overturn the Washington police's cover-up of the Rich murderers? Article above: "WND has reported on the case since its outset, reporting just weeks ago the Department of Justice was refusing to release any records related to the murder, according to a lawyer [Ty Clevenger] who has been investigating the unsolved case." The DoJ wrote to Clevenger: "The records you seek are located in a Privacy Act system of records that, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the attorney general, is exempt from the access provisions of the Privacy Act." I don't know enough to comment on the acceptability of this excuse.

Right Wing Watch wrote about the news conference, and Whalen was present, to my great surprise:

Right-wing activist and lobbyist Jack Burkman held a press event this afternoon...where he promised he would produce an eyewitness who would reveal the names of two government agents who he says murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich two years ago. Instead, all Burkman managed to do was waste 90 minutes of reporters’ time.

The writer is not a believer, is he? The long and the short of this first presentation is that the mystery witness did not appear in person, speaking by telephone instead. I would suggest not listening to the article above because the conference is online for us to watch for ourselves. It starts at the 6th minute of this Jason-Goodman video:

If we claim that this conference is an inside job, there is the problem that no major media attended it. A motive for having such an inside job is to deflect away from the DNC-paid murderer(s). But an inside job is not expected to reveal the two government employees that the witness is, supposedly, to name within two or three weeks. Everyone's wondering why he didn't name them on this first night. I'm wondering why Fox had no story on this the day after, or the day after that? It deserves at least a mention. If Fox knows that this is faked, or dubious, then have a story telling the reason(s). It's a big story either way, is it not? If people are trying to fake this event, blaming ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms) and DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), then that's a big story.

One could argue that since the big media (aside from Daily Beast, Yahoo, and Washington Post) were not interested in this story, they have pre-judged the witness as a fake. But on what basis? Are they really justified in passing up on this story? Doesn't that play to the story's authenticity, knowing that the big media are servants of the liberal mob?

A few minutes after the start of the conference, Frank Whalen speaks. He sounds sincere. It doesn't sound suspicious. He says that they have been talking with the witness for months, as if to say they have been careful in deciding whether to come out with his story. I can understand the care taken because it fingers the government. It's what many conspiracy-theory groups want, however, so that caution is the word. However, fingering the government generally on youtube is a far cry from calling a news conference, appearing personally, and promising to name names just as soon as the witness is prepared to. This is a big deal either way we view it, faked or real, unless the witness is simply offering a fabricated story for some personal reason. Fingering government employees in a high-strung murder would not be my choice for obtaining a little fame.

After the witness gets on the phone, Burkman interrupts him to tell him not to name the names of the two murderers. Hmm. It's one thing if the witness chooses not to, but what if Burkman and Whalen decided that this is not the time to do it? What possibly could be the logical reason behind that? It's very dangerous taking this tack. The government could have any of these men killed or threatened tomorrow unless they name names. Once they have told the entire story, threatening them becomes less valuable. Not naming the names on this day looks suspicious, and the witness repeatedly gives the reason or excuse that he's not yet protected enough by the government. What makes him think that he will find greater protection in the future?

In the 13th minute, Whalen tells that the witness had a conversation with the murderers, as I'll call them, even though the two men who shot Rich didn't kill him. They brag about the killing, says Whalen, which doesn't sound like a real event. But neither does it sound faked precisely because a faked script is expected to give the confession in a more realistic way. On the side of this being real and truthful, it could be that the murderers trusted the witness wholly, or, by some sort of demonic controls, they couldn't contain themselves in making what amounts to an open and unabashed confession. Both scenarios seem highly unlikely, yet here we are faced with this very claim.

The witness claims the murderers told him that they were altering Hillary's emails. It could sound as though the murderers are juicifying their story because they want to be caught by the witness, because they are involved in a staged plot. In this picture, the witness is in no danger at all by coming out because the plotters want him to come out. This picture makes sense only if the murderers were using fake identities, and if there's a possible purpose in staging this confession. The purpose must include something that the two inject into the story, but for that to produce some end that sticks or foments in the press, their respective agencies must admit that they are in fact their employees.

There are reasons to doubt a staged scenario. How could the government use government workers for any purpose, in a staging conforming to the details painted by the witness, when it entails charging them with murder and revealing their names to the public? Or, why would the government frame government employees, of all people, for the sake of deflecting from the real murderers?

The juicy thing about the witness' claims is that the murderers confessed to voiding / deleting some of Hillarys emails. If it's not a hoax, the witness is revealing the murderers as pro-Hillary. In fact, his story insists that Seth Rich stole the DNC emails, which plays to a murder conducted by, or ordered from, Hillary and the DNC themselves.

When the witness gets to the Russian tie-in, at roughly the 43-minute point, it's confusing. I can't be sure what exactly he's saying, whether the murderers were implicating the Russians, or something else. No one expects the Russians in this, if the ATF was involved. Burkman takes him off the Russia track rather than asking for clarification. It could be as innocent as Burkman not agreeing with his theory of a Russian tie, which is a thing that Burkman himself once believed. Burkman takes the topic to the thumb drive instead.

In the 14th minute, Whalen says that the murderers were "working with" Rod Rosenstein. You cannot get any juicier than this at this time. Yet Fox had no story, not even an impartial one that protects them from a law suit. I don't get it.

I cannot fathom an insider plot (a hoax) where Rosenstein is named. It would be better for us to have the choice between the witness telling the truth versus fabricating at least parts of the testimony.

Whalen says that the murderers told the witness that they were afraid of being discovered by Seth Rich, after he stole some DNC emails. This, he implies, was the motive for the murder. The much-better story is that Rich was killed due to the theft jeopardizing Hillary's 2016 election campaign. That is, the duo are expected to have been paid by the DNC to do the dirty deed, and that deed may not have been to kill Rich, for the two bullets did not even nearly kill him. It seems that the Clinton crime ring wanted him alive for questioning in the hospital.

So, in the "confession," it looks like the duo are trying to protect the DNC by taking the full blame for the shooting to themselves. But if the duo wish to protect the DNC while admitting themselves to be the shooters, it speaks to a hoax. We can propose that the witness is the only part of the hoax; i.e. there were no fellow workers who made the confession. The purpose of the hoax now becomes to approach Burkman with a fabricated, juicy story, to have him get involved until they find a way to kill him...before the witness reveals any names, of course.

We have got to entertain the story as true for at least a half mile down the road. The witness claims that Rosenstein was not the head cheese of the murder plot, but that he offered the murderers legal protection. However, we can't believe everything as full truth that the duo said in his presence. Whatever may have been Rosenstein's role, this story causes us to take the view that he, a Republican, was in support of president Hillary, and this could be due to his great dislike of a president Trump.

The witness, "Luke," comes on the phone at roughly 32 minutes, and says "prayers." He sounds normal, even humble. He says that the murderers had "multiple conversations" in front of himself, and even with other people, on this murder matter. It just sounds unbelievable. The witness says "there were three people that night," the night of the murder, I assume. He then makes the story more credible when saying that the murderers bragged about the murder without naming who their victim was. At least at first. Luke then did some research to discover who they may have been talking about, and it landed him on Seth Rich.

He says that, according to the murderers, they knew that Rich "always" carried the thumb drive with him, which plants into our minds the idea that this drive held the DNC emails. That is, not wanting to leave it at home where it might be stolen by a DNC break-and-enter, he carried it with himself. We expect that the murderers must have broken into Rich's home multiple times in order to know that he always took the drive with himself. But a drive is such a small item that they would have disturbed many things in Rich's home when seeking it's potential hiding place, thus tipping Rich off that the DNC was onto him. It can explain why he was out to 4 am, perhaps afraid of going home by night.

In the 46th minute, Luke does not want to join Rosenstein to Hillary. He denies that the murderers said anything about a Rosenstein-Hillary partnership in this murder. But Luke cannot come up with an acceptable, alternative motive for Rosenstein's protection of the murderers. We are left to conclude that Rosenstein was simply ordered, from higher up, to protect the killers. Luke does NOT look like a Hillary supporter, for he has Seth Rich stealing the DNC emails, a thing that Hillary will deny because the last thing she wants is a DNC looking responsible for the Rich murder. I and others insist that the DNC blamed the Russians for the stolen emails precisely to keep the DNC looking like Rich's murderer.

In the 57th minute, Luke tells that he has worked for a long time with the murderers, and they therefore know one another. We are led to believe that the murderers simply trusted Luke to be corrupt along with themselves. Sound plausible? No. Not normal, anyway. It appears more like they wanted to be revealed so that Luke would come to snitch. However, in the 58th minute, Luke says that this Rich-related crime was minor as compared to other crimes the murderers openly talked / boasted about. In this picture, the murderers came to trust Luke over the years.

But if they knew each other for years, then they should know where Luke lives. They have his full name, now that they know who Burkman's witness is. Their spy uppers would be able to find Luke's address. I assume that Luke will say he's now no longer working at the same place as the murderers.

In the 63-64th minute, after the Washington Post asks him to prove some authenticity for himself, for example to show some documents, Luke says he will show documents later, but, for now, he and the other media should check out things as per what he's said so far, and one of the things he says at this very point is to "check the Russian connection." It sounds ludicrous. Where can there be a Russia connection in two American-government murderers? He hasn't given anything to that end, no reason to tie Russia to this at all. It sounds like, when caught off guard by this line of questioning, he's a little shy on evidence. Perhaps he's alluding to WikiLeaks, for some claim that Assange is a Marxist or a Russian agent.

He then claims that he took a polygraph test with the Secret Service, hard to believe at first because that alone amounts to exposing himself to the government. However, the Secret Service is viewed as being on Trump's side, not on Hillarys. He also claims that he told his story to the House Intelligence Committee, the one headed by Devin Nunes. Apparently, the protection he's talking about is not against the government discovering who he is and where he lives, but government assurances that he won't be persecuted for revealing the names of two government people.

In the 70th minute, Luke verifies that the murderers indicated to him that Rich's thumb drive had the DNC emails stolen by Rich. That's a huge claim, yet Luke also points to the Russians. Perhaps he's confused by the media controversy on whether Guccifer and the Russians stole the DNC emails versus Seth Rich without any Russians. Or, again, perhaps he's indicating Assange's claim that Seth Rich transferred the DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

Wow, does Nunes really know this story? What might become of it there?

Let me tell you something interesting, but not conclusive enough for my liking. This goes to a girlfriend I had, Karen WHELAN, almost the same surname as Frank Whalen. I've told the following before, so I'm not making it up. Miss Whelan lived on a Corson street with Mr. Young and Mr. Kepke. In the Goodman video I've been discussing, Jerome CORSI was shown in a box throughout the video, and it was his surname that brought the Corson street to mind along with Miss Whelan. I then asked if God had set that event up as a pointer to this BURKman-Whalen disclosure in the works, and recalled that Mr. Kepke, while I was his friend, got himself another friend that he spent much time with, Burk. I think "Burk" was his surname, but, in any case, Kepke always called him, Burk. Hmm.

I looked up the Burk surname to find three "Ung" motto terms, which I always regard as code for the Youngs / Jungs. Not only did Mr. Young live on Corson street too, but it must have been through him that I met Miss Whelan, for her sister was dating Mr. Young at the time. As I said a couple of updates ago, Kepke became suspect as God's code for Trump, and it just so happens that Trumps use a stag head in the colors of the stag of German Youngs/Jungs. This stag head is in an Arms of Waterford, and Whelans (Corson lozenges in colors reversed) were first found in Waterford with Corson-like Corrys and Correns.

Like I said, this is not interesting enough for me. I want more-solid proof that God used Miss Whelan to point to this Burkman-Whalen event as something to be taken seriously, or as being His personal exposure. I'm pleasantly open but not convinced.

Burkmans can be gleaned as the kin of Dols (whale, same place as same-colored Trumps, beside German Burkmans), and as the Alans whom had merged with Julians (Alans lived in Dol). German Julians have six pale bars colors reversed from the six of Burkmans, and French Alans share the French-Julian stars. Is this a pointer to Julian Assange's involvement with the Burkman-Whalen disclosure?

As my past updates can verify, I trace Trumps and their Tromp variation to Val Trompia at lake GARDa. The motto of English Youngs share "Toujours" with Gards. The Rich motto happens to be, "Garde la foy," and "foy" happens to be a Burk motto term too.

Val Trompia is beside BREScia/BRIXia, and the Brix's/Brests not only share the Corson lozenges, but they are colors reversed from Brick lozenges while Whelans share the Brick Shield and Crest. Gards (Griffin griffin in colors reversed) share the same chevron as the particular Gards that use griffins, and the Griffin family, as Wikipedia will verify, was from Pomerania, where Trumps were first found. Irish Griffins were first found in Munster with the first-known Bricks. The latter are using the Massey fleur for a reason, and Maschi's, a Massey branch, share pine cones with the Brick-suspect Burkmans.

After watching the news conference a second time, and while writing much to this point, I was able to swallow Luke's story much better. It's a lot harder the first time. It takes a second watch to get into Luke's mentality. He has nothing to gain, including no reward, if the men he's going to finger are innocent. He would need to be a psychopath to finger two government operatives in the way he's fingering them, if they had nothing to do with it, if they did not talk to him as he says they talked to him. Would you agree? And if he's not prepared to reveal them, then this first conference seems pointless, unless it's to indicate that Nunes and the Secret Service have rejected his story. If he's telling the truth, expect many government operatives in the blogs calling Luke a nut one way or the other.

Here's a guy with a good wrap-up on the news conference in case you missed a few points due to the not-good audio. Like myself, he sees Luke's story as plausible or even credible, but is open to a ruse from the Clintons:

If this story is true, then we have an example of spies able to spy out even the DNC on behalf of goons such as Rosenstein, no FISA permission needed whatsoever. It's unthinkable that Intelligence and similar others do not have their own, underground spy systems (lots of different ones).

On July 13, days after the Burkman conference, Rosenstein indicts a dozen Russians and accuses some of them of hacking into the DNC. For example: "The Russian officers are accused of stealing user names and passwords of volunteers in Clinton’s campaign, including its chairman, John Podesta." In other words, Rosenstein may have seen fit, thanks to Burkman's sudden disclosures, to start re-emphasizing the Russian theft of the DNC emails. It is easy as pie for something like the CIA to frame Russians or even Martians for hacking anyone or anything.

Let the people see the details of the DNC hack from the point of view of the DNC computers. The DNC has refused to allow this. That situation speaks for itself. The DNC refused to let even the FBI seek proof, in its computer system, of the Russian hack...because the Russians did not do it.

Here's an interesting bit on the WikiLeaks founder:

The silencing of Assange came just one day after the Ecuadorian government welcomed a delegation from the US Southern Command, the Pentagon’s arm in Latin America and the Caribbean, headed by Southcom’s deputy military commander, Gen. Joseph DiSalvo, and its chief political officer, Ambassador Liliana Ayalde...

Was the timing a coincidence? Or did the Pentagon’s representatives deliver a blunt directive to their Ecuadorian counterparts to silence Julian Assange? The obvious question that follows is what other demands have been made. Do they include handing over Assange to Washington?

On the issue of the five witnesses who have suddenly come out against Jim Jordan, to tarnish his reputation just as he's prepared to run for the Speaker of the House, it turns out that Perkins Coie is at the spear of the attack. Perkins Coie was hired by Hillary Clinton to get the dirt on Trump. Thank you, Mr. Trump, for this. Had you been on the attack against these goons, they would not have been doing this to Jordan at this time.

Victim after victim, but the president does nothing to put a proper leader in the justice department. I'm starting to think he's some kind of evil mental-case. All the big media are ganging up on Jordan for a teensy-weeny matter as compared to the crimes of the Hillary circle against Trump. Will this fool, the president, finally replace Sessions and Rosenstein now? What will it take???

At, Jordan's religion is listed as "Christian" rather than Roman Catholic, Baptist, etc. That can explain this attack. Here's Jordan's side of the story, where he says his nephew was killed in a car crash "last night". Mr. Trump, fool, are you there? People are getting killed in this political war, and you are to blame.

Trump is the man on the ship looking down at Jim Jordan drowning in the ocean. "I believe you 100 percent, Jim." But he doesn't toss Jim the life saver. He lets Jim drown. Jim called for a just department of justice, but Trump acted handcuffed to do anything about Sessions and Rosenstein. refused to hear. Those who see Jim in action are seeking to destroy him, but Trump turns away, goes on his way to his next television boast, so irresistible. He lives for the boast. "Sorry to see you drowning, Jim, you're a good man."

Late last week, Orrin Hatch revealed that Coney Barret would be Trump's pick. Hatch then appeared on Fox on Monday to say that he called the new judge a "she" because he wanted to respect the female class, not because he's a female. This flip-flop suggests that Trump changed his mind on the weekend, and chose Brett Kavanaugh, a Yale graduate. "Brett Michael Kavanaugh...was Staff Secretary in the Executive Office of the President of the United States under President George W. Bush." Last week, word came out that the Bush's wanted Kavanaugh to be the pick, and they are ecstatic now to see him nominated. I wonder what Trump is up to with this.

Kavanaugh is a Washingtonian, but Trump would have done better to chose an outsider. One can't live and work in Washington without Washington mentality rubbing into his fabric. He's also another Catholic, as is Clarence Thomas, as was Scalia. Why do we suppose that Trump didn't see fit to put an evangelical on the court, since evangelicals are a large sector of the better part of the population, and seeing that evangelicals helped to get him elected while Catholics are by-and-large Democrat voters? I absolutely do not fall for the claim that Trump chose the best-possible judge. His choice involved reasons we do not know.

Wikipedia" "Baptist denominations and other evangelical churches have been underrepresented on the Court, relative to the population of the United States. Conversely, mainline Protestant churches historically [not these days] were overrepresented". I'm a Baptist - evangelical type. "In 2005, John Roberts became...the fourth Catholic on the Court." This means that there might soon be five Catholics and four Jews. What in tarnation is going on? I know. Anything but proper Christians. I get it. The Masonic fabric of the United States despises "Bible thumpers." Trump snubbed my brothers and sisters, and Trump will pay the price. He really does not care what we think.

Kavanaugh has never stated that he intends to overturn Roe v Wade. Even Susan Collins, the pro-abortion Republican promising to refrain from gibing Coney Barret a vote, is mildly happy with Kavanaugh. That says it all. Trump betrayed his own promise to put a pro-lifer on the court, and in the meantime he hoodwinked my brothers and sisters. On the same day he did this, his lawyer for the past decade, Mr. Cohen, promised to come out and tell the truth about Trump. I know the truth already. Trump is a sinful imposter.

I've just found this: "'I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully,' Kavanaugh said during his 2006 confirmation hearing for the D.C. appellate court. 'It’s been reaffirmed many times.'" The president has just ripped his own face off. He claimed by implication that abortion is murder, but, afterward, when he's in a position of absolute, unilateral power, he does not assure that the judge he picked is wholly devoted to criminalizing abortion. Is that not an empty-hearted farce? Is it not a brazen betrayal of his own words? Someone who betrays his own words has no face. He acts without a heart. Having no heart, he has no face either.

The best we can hope for is that Kavanaugh was lying when he uttered the words above. It's possible that he was lying to keep liberal monkeys off his back. I would prefer that he not be confirmed so that Trump needs to choose another one.

Blessed are those who long for an America where Jesus is great again. It's the only thing that matters. I know people like this. I know that evangelical Christians are passionate for a Christ-centered nation. It's precisely the reason that evangelicals are not on the supreme court. America is at odds with Jesus. Masonic America wants to be antithetic to Jesus, a world ruler in the stead of Jesus. An administration that keeps loyalty to Christ is the only thing that stands. Everything else will spoil. Mr. Trump, you stand no chance. Unwilling to repent, you express your own folly.

Let us not be afraid of a Democratic White House. The Democrats can make their plans, but God decides the outcome. What did Obama accomplish in the way of harm to us? Not much. They stole our money, as did George Bush, as is Trump. Let's not be the willing fools of Republican presidents for fear of a Democrat White House. If not for Obama, the exposure of the deep state wouldn't have taken place. Obama did far more to expose it than Trump has, and Obama wasn't even trying to expose it. God can make a Democrat president like the flatulence out his behind. Better the enemy we know than Trump the imposter, the one making false promises to us, stringing his Christian voters along.

During an CNN interview on Tuesday morning, White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah did not deny an NBC report that outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy “received assurances” from President Trump that if he retired, Judge Brett Kavanaugh — one of Kennedy’s former clerks — would be nominated to be his replacement.

Asked repeatedly if some sort of deal between Trump and Kennedy was struck before Kennedy announced his retirement, Shah dodged, saying things like “I’m not going to read out private conversations that Justice Kennedy had with either members of the White House or the president,” and, “Justice Kennedy can speak for himself.” But what Shah didn’t do is deny the NBC report.

Shah is on a video at the page above. He is in no position either to deny or confirm the charge, for he was not likely privy to a deal if indeed a deal took place. If this charge against Trump is true, it not only reveals that he's guilty of theater, and wasting the time of four judges with this theater, but that the supreme court is now choosing judges instead of the president. Having said that, we cannot trust the liberal media on this issue.

Perhaps Orrin Hatch was part of this theater, using a Friday ruse to lead us to falsely believe that Trump chose Kavanaugh only on the weekend. That makes some sense. From the very start, it seemed very odd that Hatch would not only "accidentally" reveal that Trump's pick is a "she," but he did it a second time in the same breath with a "her." If that now looks like theater for a secret cause, it's the best explanation. For, I find it hard to believe that anyone would accidentally slip with "she" and "her" when he knows darn well that he's not to reveal the pick. Trump involved in theater? But of course.

Anyone who allows Roe v Wade to stand does not rate as a good judge. There's a big hole there. If it's a shirt, the hole ruins it. If it's in a ship, it sinks. If it's in a judge, he's far from the best. I say that anyone who has accepted Christ is permitted to compare worldly affairs, and those who control them, with the values of Jesus. The one thing I can be very happy about is that I, as a Christian, do not work for Fox or Trump. Pity those who do, who feel the need to betray the values of Jesus (even if momentarily) to support their bosses.

Trump's pick of Kavanaugh gives certain Republicans cause for celebration. These are those Bushites who prefer abortion and detest religious activists in the courts. How do we define a religious activist? Why is he portrayed in such a dirty way? We might expect atheists and liberals to detest religious activists, but Republicans too? Surely, they must be the sorts of Republicans that come out of Masonic groups, such as Yale's Skull and Bones. Was Kavanaugh a Skull-and-Bones idiot? Perhaps he was. What do intelligent men come out like after loving their Skull-and-Bones experiences? I don't want to know.

A religious activist on the court wishes to conform American law to the laws of Jesus, which is perfectly constitutional because God is part of the constitution, and we assume that this God was intended by the framers as the Father of Jesus. Okay, now that we have defined a religious activist on the court, how dirty is it really? It looks to me to be the ticket to a great America, but Trump did not chose this. Instead, he wants a great America his own way. Therefore, make a clear distinction between Trump's America and the kingdom of God. They are not the same, though Masonic types would have you think so.

On July 11, Fox & Friends featured a video, "Lahren: Targeting Roe v. Wade is a mistake." The woman in the middle of the Fox threesome is a Christian. She does NOT respond against the pro-abortionist, Lahren, as she attacks "religious judicial activists." She lets Lahren have her say without an argument. This Christian betrayed Jesus for Trump. That Christian, when on her show, anyway, supports Trump in virtually all he does, because Fox sucks his nipples. It's disgusting. Virtually everything Trump does is accepted as correct by Fox's visible employees, and Christians are expected to tow that line. Beware. There is a price to pay. Better to keep faith with Jesus on Fox than to have a job with Fox. If Fox wants a Christian to betray Jesus, leave Fox. The test is on. Fox is so money-hungry that it does not put dates on its programs. Otherwise, when you see an old date on a video from Fox, you're less likely to watch it. Isn't that a form of deception from Fox?

It really is a terrible situation for Christians to have non-believer peers at work. Some of them are so rabidly anti-Jesus that's it's impossible to have a normal relationship with them. I feel very sorry for Christians working in such spiritual environments. They are bound to fall, to do less than an acceptable job in the loyalty-toward-Jesus department. It's exactly what the anti-Christs want us to do, fail Jesus, so that they can mock. No one wants their work situation to be a constant struggle with peers who antagonize us for our faith. God is asking much of us for so long. The satanic situation has pervaded society for about 40 years already. I never thought that it would last that long. It looks as though it could go on for another 40.

I just can't stand it. If I had to talk to everyone I meet about Jesus, I'd now go crazy. I'd become very upset. People would make me very upset. They would seek ways to make my days troublesome. What kind of a life is this? How did it get this way? The bulls in our midst have done it. They order us to keep our faith to ourselves. We prize our faith. We have a healthy view of Jesus. We rejoice in salvation, and want it for others, but they heap against us, they drop their shit upon us, and are not ashamed. The Obamas of this world are urging them to heap upon us, but uglier two-horned creatures than Obama are arising to make it their task to heap more heavily.

Why did Fox news, which is a calculated news media, have someone on who is calling Republicans to denounce religious activists? Because, that's a phrase for indicating pro-life evangelicals who steer the world toward the morality of Jesus. It gives me the impression that Fox is now taking aim at evangelicals who want someone else on the court besides Kavanaugh. Trump-Kavanaugh lovers are about to spin things to make it appear unconstitutional to have religious activists on the court. But religion aside, abortion is still the killing of a human being. The constitution does not reject the unborn child as a citizen of the United States. No one can make the argument that a child in a womb is any different than a child outside the womb, so far as the constitution is concerned, so far as reality is concerned. The child is a child no matter where he/she is, in a room, in a bus, in a womb. The mother has no right to kill a child in a room, on a bus, or in her womb.

There is nothing in the constitution that argues in favor of abortion. You can't argue that the mother has a right to kill her child in the womb if it's making her unhappy. Yes, the constitution protects happiness, but it doesn't allow a mother to kill her child in a room or in a bus just because it's making her unhappy.

How, then, can a constitutionalist judge, as Kavanaugh is being portrayed, argue on behalf of abortion? Just because it's now law? Does that mean that Kavanaugh is not prepared to counter any existing law? But what if someone challenges a law? Isn't that what judges are partly appointed for? To whom do the people take their case if they don't like a law? A law expert seems logical? Can we say that a judge is a law expert? Yes. But then why does Kavanaugh argue that he's not prepared to strike down a law as if it's not his job to do so?

The remainder of this week may turn to Strzok and Page if either one appears before congress as scheduled.

The Western Demon, Beloved by Trump

It became my view and that of others, once Putin came to power showing desire to relate ordinarily to the West, that the West should have cultivated a better relationship with Russia in hopes that cold-war attitudes would evaporate completely eventually. Trump appeared to be of that view during the election campaign. This week, Trump has shown a willingness to embrace Putin in a Western partnership, but playing it cautiously so that he doesn't get labeled as pro-Russia, he has effected some harsh things against Putin, including a build-up of NATO. He says that Putin now wishes that Hillary had been elected instead.

Sufficient years of non-threatening calm through the Yeltsin and Gorbachev administrations had gone by to show that Russia could be weaned off of its former aggressive attitude. It's what the world needed, especially the Western society. But the American military with its NATO partner took another position, that of demonizing Putin and starting the cold-war scenario once again. Why why why? It seems to be Trump's mission to bring Putin back into the West, and he even said this week that Russia should be permitted to re-join the G8.

He implied that he's hoping to get Russia out of the Crimea, and perhaps Putin can be swayed if Trump can work it's pipeline deal with the Ukraine back from the dead. However, Trump just indicated, as one of his harsh thingies, that Europe should not be purchasing fuel from Russia (it's not even his place to comment upon). I don't see how he can advance himself as having a winning strategy, in this case, with this losing strategy, but he always advances himself as a special dealer-wheeler. He has a conceit problem.

I had some reasons for half-expecting the final seven years to begin in 2009, but told readers that I was withdrawing that expectation in 2010, which was the year of the Russia-Georgia war. I was wondering whether Russia would fulfill the role of Gog at that time, and take the Georgian war southward toward Israel. Instead, Russia got out of Georgia, aside from annexing two of its areas where the Georgian citizens wanted to be with Russia. But, in the way of intrusionary tactics, this pales in comparison to what the American military did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

Eventually, it became clear that Western animosity toward Russia had nothing to do with morals. Instead, it turned out to be a war for capturing some large fuel markets. Had this not been the case, I would probably be anti-Russia hands-down at this time. Instead, I'm more anti-West, because it's the nasty party seeking to gobble up the fuel market in Russia's backyard, where Russia has the right and the expectation to operate in fuel sales. To put it another way, the American military started to demonize Putin on behalf of wanting to make more money in fuel sales, and, in the meantime, to cripple the Russian nation by denying it as much fuel sales as possible. Trump is showing the same attitude.

Never mind how Russia behaves in reaction to the West. Instead, concentrate on how evil the American military is. That's closer to home, and it matters because an evil military will also turn on the Western people in ways that Russia can't. We are seeing how, at any moment, the deep police state is apt to persecuting / killing American people on a massive scale, if needed. Yes, it's all getting clearer now: the police state is a closet mob, the real enemy that, even if subdued to a degree under Trump, will re-arise after he's gone.

There was no need to protect Europe from Russian military intrusions by the time that Putin came to power. There was no indication that Russia was prepared to start a war for the purpose of re-acquiring its old Soviet satellites. It's not going to happen, especially if the two nations have a healthy fuel deal. This deal was much better until the Americans came in to sabotage it, at the same time that the Americans were seeking to topple Syria in order to promote American / Western fuel sales to Europe. In this quest, the Americans have made the Russians go dark again. I lay the blame fully on the Americans. FULLY. And Trump is now adding fuel to that fire. Though Putin was hoping to see Trump elected in order to be rid of the American animosity, Trump looks like he's shaping up to be Putin's worst enemy.

This week, Trump said: "But how can you [the EU] be together [united] when you’re getting energy from the group [Russia] you want protection from?" Ouch. This comes when the headlines are saying that the United States is about to become the biggest oil producer, and exactly on the day that Trump was dealing with (bucking for) the strengthening of NATO, the very enemy that Putin hoped Trump would subdue. Instead, he's barking at the EU to put more money into NATO.

But if Germany, for example, sees no need to put more money into the NATO pot -- and Germany sits in Russia's back yard -- don't we think that Trump should just shut up? Yes, he should, but the CIA and military don't want him to shut up. They want a bigger military, a bigger NATO, and Trump has already gotten them both, no sooner than when the Trump horse was out of the gate. Is Trump bent on conquest? Looks like. The better way forward is for the United States to put less money into NATO, but Trump is not taking that tack. In order to grow NATO, one needs to demonize Russia, which builds the road to Armageddon, doesn't it? NATO has no other purpose but to defend Europe against Russia. NATO has untold spies spying on the Russians every minute of every day. Is this a good / safe way forward? The obvious way forward should be, take it easy. Relax. Put less money into NATO. Don't re-open the wound with saber rattling.

Why do we think that the CIA opposed Trump's election? Because, Trump was talking as though he would befriend Putin. Why do we think that Trump has not befriended Putin? Because, the CIA is in his ears. It's telling him what to do. Trump put the CIA director in charge of his world affairs. Trump desires to become a unilateral military animal, the kind that the cold-war society once feared. Trump has no desire for peace with Korea. Instead, the game with Korea is to take it away from its Russian partnership. Korea saw through Pompeo, and called him a mobster.

Every action has a reaction. As the American dragon started to pollute Putin's reputation, he drew nearer to North Korea and Iran. And he also showed antagonism against Israel. So, the American demon is creating what looks like the Armageddon scenario. The more that the Western coalition tries to possess fuel markets through Middle-Eastern terrain, the more that Russia will engage in reactions. Trump can't get on Putin's good side by continuing the fuel war against Russia. I do expect, however, Putin to play along with Trump, in the coming months and years. To where will they dance together?

In Daniel 7, it tells us that the EU will be burned by fire. I can see no other logical fulfillment other than China's or Russia's nuclear arsenal against Europe. Revelation 17 speaks on the burning of the EU too, in my opinion, and it's done by the anti-Christ, suggesting that Russia, not China, will burn the EU. This is why I frown on Western attitudes against Putin at this time. We don't desire Armageddon. On the other hand, we'll come to accept it. The West will so abuse my brothers and sisters that I will not weep for its terrible end. The East abandoned the true God long ago.

It is God himself who sets up the anti-Christ as a ruler on the world stage. There are two stated purposes for this: 1) to destroy Rothschild Zionism; 2) to destroy the anti-Israeli partners of the anti-Christ. It sure sounds as though Russia is a candidate for providing the anti-Christ. Perhaps the time is coming, as US push turns into Russian shove, that the Russians will say, "enough is enough," launching an invasion of the Middle-East for to take it from American control. Would Putin do that? Or should we be looking to Russia's president after Putin leaves?

The needed concern about Trump-loving Christians is their becoming pillars of salt. Will they turn their heads to look back at end-time Sodom as it burns? By what coincidence was the burning of old Sodom a symbol of Armageddon while faggots are becoming daily news today? Faggots are coming to rule the world. Faggots will be placed into positions of power more than they already have. Faggots will pervade. The liberals are intent on bringing Sodom to life again. But never mind them, because Christians are starting to look like walking pillars of salt. If you care so much for America today, might your heart be pained at its burning? Will God reject you from His kingdom due to this love you have for America?

Why do I repeatedly come down hard against the American military? Now you know. It has to do with salt. What will the end-time test on Christians be about if not for God rejecting some of them? There were not only one or two foolish virgins in Jesus's parable, but five out of ten. The foolish virgins, the salt pillars. It looks like there will be many of them.

Just because I'm no friend of the Western governments around me does not make me a shoe-in for the Kingdom of God. The end-time test requires more than a hating of this world. We are to keep Jesus relevant. We can't forget about Jesus while becoming embroiled in the policy-making of politicians. We cannot allow ourselves to trample on Jesus for the sake of winning the political fights or for propping up a "great" America. The masonic tools of power structures have conflated Christianity with patriotism, beware. We cannot join the table of the world to the table of Christ.

Separation of church and state was a principal intended to keep the state out of the church's affairs, though the liberals have corrupted this with a new definition: no Bible allowed on state property. It was never intended that way. The very fact that the early leaders created separation of church and state tells us that the state is apt to being corrupt, apt to abusing the church. We are seeing liberals today who would force Christians to act as the state dictates. That's Obama and Trudeau together, and we can be sure that many EU leaders think just like that. Our job is to recognize this attack from the manufacturers of salt pillars, and to get on-side with Jesus with zeal. If anything produces purity, zeal and recommitment in the churches, it's an attack from the state. Go for it, make our day.

Do salt pillars justify love for this world using the command of Jesus, "love your enemy." Can we see where we could slip and fall when taking that command too far? How do we love our enemies? With true love? I don't think that's what Jesus meant. If we are open arms to all sinners, might God judge us as those who join our table with the table of the world? Our job is to make the state more like Christ, and this requires a recognition of its failings toward Jesus. It's precisely because the modern state is void of Jesus that we are not to embrace it with open arms.

When trapped by a Christian, Trump openly said that he needs no forgiveness from Christ, and that he has never asked for it, therefore. He said this laughable thing while trying to pretend to be a Christian in order to bring Christians close to him. There is nothing more we need to know, from this total buffoon, in order to know enough to keep our distance from this imposter.

I call him a buffoon because there are other ways to justify never asking for forgiveness, but this peacock had the audacity to say that he doesn't need forgiveness because he has not done any wrong. How do we think Jesus would take such a statement? God laughs, because Trump is a clown. He's just a stupid clown acting as though he knows everything right. He's stupid because he doesn't accept his own sinfulness. I see this is down-right satanic by the Biblical definition. Satan is the most-stupid of all the creatures, have I got that right? Yes, I do. He uses his greater intelligence to act stupidly. Do we equate greater intelligence with acting more correctly? To the contrary, intelligence can act stupidly, foolishly, wrongly, hurtfully.

Fine, be happy that he was elected rather than Hillary, but don't be surprised if Trump betrays Christian values while setting into power men and women who will counter Christian values. The more he consolidates power with the dark side, the less he might deem Christians necessary for his 2020 project.

Nothing could make me happier than for Trump to become a sincere believer in Jesus, and in the words of his apostles. But very few people change their minds at his age, especially those who will never see the inside of a needle's eye. We can't wait for him to become a Christian; we must assume that his agenda will progress toward evil, for if Christ is absent within him, then demons control / direct much of his thinking.

In World Net Daily's coverage of the Kavanaugh pick, the article chose to quote the following, dubious statement from the Christian side:

The pro-life group Operation Rescue noted Trump “promised pro-life supporters during his campaign that he would appoint justices that would respect and protect the most fundamental of human rights – the right to life.”

“His pick of Judge Kavanaugh represents another promise kept,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

Ah, er, is that like a hopeful guess stated as fact? Looks like. It looks like a suck-the-Trump-tit statement. Go ahead, suck, because you'll soon be crying like a baby without milk. Trump has none, no nutrition for us. Trump is a dry tree ready to be cut down.

The same article: "Trump’s chief Supreme Court adviser is Leonard Leo, who is on leave as the executive vice president of the Federalist Society to serve in the White House." At house of names, both Leo surnames can be gleaned from the Jewish Catholics, the Pierleoni. How about that. The supreme court is stacked with Jews and Catholics, and here Trump's court advisor is descended from the Jewish-Catholic stinkers that were very likely behind the invasion of Templar Jerusalem. Godfrey de Bouillon's grandfather, Godfrey III, militarily assisted the Pierleoni when the latter were having a conflict with the Vatican. The Pierleoni wanted to establish themselves as popes.

? The Crusaders under de Bouillon had the Vatican on-side, otherwise they would have failed earlier. The pope who permitted the Jerusalem invasion died the year (1099/1100) of the victory, as did de-Bouillon, if that tells us how NOT blessed by God they were. De Bouillon's brother was made the first Jerusalem king instead.

Four current supreme-court judges (none of the four Jewish/liberal ones), and Scalia, were members of Mr. Leo's Federalist Society. The president is Mr. Meyer, a Jewish surname. It seems that Jews have a near-monopoly on the American legal system. How did that come to be? Probably, this "society" is entrenching itself in the Trump administration in anticipation for yet another supreme-court nominee. Who, really, is choosing the judges for the American nation? And how secretly Masonic is it? "The Federalist Society has been influential in the Trump administration, hand-selecting Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and recruiting a slate of conservative judges to fill vacancies throughout the federal judiciary. The society helped to assemble the list of 21 people from which Donald Trump said he would choose a nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court." I don't think Mr. Trump has chosen either supreme-court judge so far. Orrin Hatch was/is a member.

This Society likes the phrase, "to say what the law is, not what it should be". This strikes me as a means to make judges subservient to lawmakers, even if lawmakers make laws for personal / party benefits. Who will correct such corruption if not judges? Why can't the supreme court judge whether a law is just or not, whether it was made for personal benefits, or whether it has left out an important, relevant matter? For example, the mother has the right to happiness, but Roe v Wade had left out the right to life of the child. Is the Federalist Society saying that the law created from a court case, Roe v Wade, cannot be struck down on the merit of that one argument? If so, I spit on the Federalist Society. The nation needs better than that. Judges should be permitted to strike down bad laws.

It is a sick brainwashing technique to train a judge to uphold every single law even when he/she sees it as missing a central part. In the case of Roe v Wade, it's missing the very hub of the wheel. The child is not part of the decision whatsoever. The child may as well be a tumor. If you don't think that's sick, I spit on you too.

The winning judges in Roe v Wade turned a blind eye to an important matter precisely because they were activists for the abortion cause. There is no other explanation for when a judge ignores the right to life of the child.

Recall my suggestion that Orrin Hatch (Mormon in his youth, may still be one) was involved in theater with Trump for to pick Kavanaugh. Then read from Leo's Wikipedia article: "Leo was born on Long Island, New York in 1965. He attended Cornell University, graduating with a bachelor's degree in 1986, and working as an intern in the office of Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)...Leo served as National Co-Chairman of Catholic Outreach for the Republican National Committee, and as the 2004 Bush presidential campaign's Catholic Strategist. He was appointed by President George W. Bush..." Catholics everywhere in this picture. They despise evangelicals, don't they? Anything but a Bible thumper, isn't that the American way?

Then why do Christians support these "constitutionalists"? I'm sure that the constitution was written as "for the people" in efforts to trick the people into supporting the break-away from the king of England. The people were tricked into believing that government served them, such a scam. The human heart does not work that way; people in power are not laying down their lives for the benefit of others. That's why presidents always tell the people that they are working for the people, to reinforce the scam that worked excellently since Jefferson. The drawback for the rulers is that the people are always clamoring as though they own government, but the rulers laugh behind their backs. Isn't that the way things really are?

Get yourself a puke bag: " a board member of the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast and a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta." Isn't that from mainstream Templarism? Yup. It's also called, Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta, and uses a Templar cross colors reversed from the Rhodes-surname cross, suggesting that the Rhodes surname derives from this Order's people on the Anatolian island of Rhodes. The Order's cross is in both colors of the Bouillon-surname cross. The LEOpard in the Rhodes Crest can therefore be for the Pierleoni (named after pope Leo).

The Order's cross is that also of FACE's/Fessys, explaining why heraldry has so-called "leopard faces." They are not heads, but faces, when the neck is not showing. One Leopard surname uses leopard faces, and the other is in Italian-Leo colors while featuring a leopard head in the colors of the leopard faces of the other Leopards. The FESSE of Italian Leo's is in the colors of the PAYNE fesse, and, of course, this speaks to Hugh de Payens, the first grand master of the Templars, and resident of Jerusalem for some two decades. The other Payne's share a white and passant lion with Italian Leo's. German Leo's, sharing the Rhodes lions, are shown also as PYRzewski's, suggesting PIERleoni.

Catholicism is a fake Christianity. Those cardinals and bishops are engaged in sexual sins, which spills down to the priests and even alter boys. We've learned this already.

When Hitler maligned Jews in his nation, he had the same sentiments as God has in prophecy. I'm not justifying the mass-murder of Jews, of course, just saying that God had never-ending complaints about the "adultery" of his nation. Whatever bad thing Hitler had to say about Jews, God said worse. Whatever bad fate Hitler put the Jews through, God has something very similar prepared for Rothchilian Israel. Let's not mince words just because the masons want us to. God has a very dark cloud over Israel at this time. It is not a bright day coming just because Trump and Pompeo are having talks with Israel. Israel is an adulteress. Get that straight. God will take the adulteress, cut her down, whip her until she's mainly dead with mouth to the dust. At that moment, Jesus will appear over Israel, and she will weep harshly, finally understanding the Truth. In dread of heart, she will finally conform to her God, who will make her the leader of nations.

Sorry, CIA, you won't get picked to rule the globe. God's going to lift your pants and expose you naked, burn your legs off, and with your head sinking in the mire that you have made for America, you will drown never to be seen again, you abysmal spy. You like to live underground, not to be seen? So be it, in Hell you will abide.

Enter "Rothchild" (no 's' as in "Rothschild"), and click the Jewish surname to see a white-on-blue bend rising to the Shield's sinister side. German Leo's use such a bend, and both surnames share the gold, Zionist star with Payens. Rothschild-Bauer bankers descend from Peter Pollock of Rothes castle, and PIERleoni were named partly after a Peter. The Pero's use the same Zionist stars as above, likely those of Weis' too, and it just so happens that while German Rothchilds and Weis' were first found in Bavaria with Bavaria-like Bauers (and Heids), the Bavarian Illuminati was founded in 1776 by the Jew, Adam WEIShaupt ("haupt" means "head'). Thomas Jefferson, who was surrounded by Masons, liked Adam Weishaupt. The latter was a contemporary of Mayer Bauer, the first Rothschild. Bauers share wings with Weis' and Wies', and the Wies / Hitler/Hiedler / EU star. Compare the Jewish Rothchild Coat to that of Heidlers (not "Hiedler"), who share the white anchor with Hoods/Hoots. I know it sounds crazy, but Adolf Hitler was probably a crazy Jew. He not only wanted to seize the wealth of German Jews upon their murders, but to rule the world. Lunatic.

Do we know any other lunatics? Yes, the carriers of the Bavarian Illuminati and the Cecil-Rhodes "societies" to which the British Rothschilds belonged. These lunatics wish to rule the world based on their mere money. God says, nope, you can't have it. But they are prepared to war against God's only-begotten Son. Lunatics. Bill Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar, and he said that it's just honky to kill a child (or millions of them) at nine months of age, providing it's still partly in the birth canal. This is what liberal, activist judges have given the world, the mad concept that a child in the mother is so much tumor or garbage, so long as the mother doesn't want it. Or, better yet, Clinton fully understood the murder in his statement, yet didn't care. For abortionists and too many mothers, murder is honky. This is what we lambs have been made to put up with, a mad world from the "society" calling itself "illuminated." The only good thing about this year is that it's one year nearer to the End-Game.

The National review has an article of Mr. Leo, with the headline, "There Is Nothing Nefarious about Conservative Christians Influencing the Judiciary." Catholics should not be lumped with "conservative Christians." There is a distinct separation between the two; they do not generally work together, and when they do, there is a better chance for the fall of evangelicals to sin / traps because Catholics harbor demons. Most Catholics are salt pillars, with one finger or less in the Bible and an entire leg or torso in the world.

The treasurer of the Federalist Society is Brent Hatch, son of Orrin Hatch. Online quote: "Brent O. Hatch, the son of Sen. Orrin Hatch ..." Orrin just said: "I was honored that the President would consult me about this critical pick and invite me to attend the official White House announcement." Why did Hatch trick the entire party, leading them to think that Mrs. Barrett was the pick?

The white lion head (same design, rare at houseofnames) in the Hatch Crest is in the English Rothes Crest. The Hatch Shield has the double lions of Brunswicks while German Rothschilds/Roddensteins (probably the Heid arrow) were first found in Brunswick. The Rothschild/Roddenstein arrow is the Rodden/RODHAM bend, and it's probably the bend of Jewish Rothchilds as well. Barrets can be using the white horse in the Coat of Jewish Rothchilds. Barrett-suspect Bars had ruled in Brunswick. Do the heraldic math; what does it tell us? English Barretts were first found in Lincolnshire with Rhodes'.

Orrin Hatch has been a pro-lifer, at least from his lips. The following may be more than a silver lining, but do keep in mind that Leo is yet suspect with Rothschild globalism: "Schumer cited Ed Whelan, a former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who wrote shortly before Trump [ah, er, Leo] selected Gorsuch, 'No one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe vs. Wade than the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo.'" True or false? Is it a trick to make evangelicals accept Leo? Or, is Kavanaugh tricking the liberals by trying to make them falsely believe that he won't overturn abortion?

Why is it that a judge wanting to overturn Roe is labeled an activist rather than one simply concerned for the legal right of the child's life? What does a judge have to be ashamed of if he/she believes that the unborn child is as good as a born child? How is this belief guilty of activism when activism is the very remedy of that rotten, Roe law? Cure abortion today; the unborn baby is not a cancer. Instead of killing the unborn, kill the pro-abortionists. Yup, God's plan. There will be no sympathy for them.

They have exposed themselves. They have spoken words against their own souls. When they argue that a mother has the right, for any reason, to abort the life of her own child, then they will have no argument when the Father decides, for any reason, to abort the lives of his pro-abortionist children. Fair is fair, you fools. You keep God out of your equation, and you murder because you do not believe He exists. We have you figured out, evil ones.

One evil leads to another. After you kill the unborn, you will kill the born with more ease, less conscience. Predictable. Intelligent fools are predictable. They steer their lives into evil. They park there. They loiter there. They will die there.

Strzok Appears Before the People

They say he lied, but Strzok also told some truth. Jim Jordan, the hero in this one, got Strzok to confess more than once that Bruce Ohr delivered dossier parts to the FBI. This is one major item the FBI has been trying to hide. That is, Obama's department of justice delivered dossier parts, paid for by Hillary Clinton, to the FBI. The FBI then used dossier parts to spy on the Trump team, though we don't yet know how many were spied on through the use of the dossier. Bruce Ohr not only worked in the upper levels of the Obama department of justice, but was the husband of the woman who had worked the summer for Fusion GPS, the owner of the dossier. Fusion GPS was hired by Hillary Clinton, and asked to own the dossier. In that case, Fusion GPS was part of the Clinton conspiracy to frame Trump. What has the Trump department of justice done about this wicked conspiracy? Thanks to the president himself, a cover up.

Trump is the president today because the conspiracy was Mickey Mouse. Hillary's competence is the first clue, but a look at Strzok today nails it. This was the lousiest conspiracy ever, it didn't stand a chance. Team Mickey Mouse continues to take a bashing to this day. This game is not yet half way, and the score is already 400-0.

But no one tops a Mickey-Mouse performance like Jeff Sessions, except Donald Trump. When the president tweets great words against the conspiracy, they amount to a squeak-squeak. He became the president only because his competitor was wee-wee-dirty Hillary Clinton, and because the great Obama proved to be Mickey Mouse. The dossier was so Mickey Mouse that Comey wouldn't advertise it before the election. Comey, after embracing the dossier, sabotaged Steele at the last moment. It's like a late-game field-goal kick at 20 yards, with coach Hillary down by two points, but Comey misses the ball and lands flat on his back, and then dies at blocker Trump's feet. It's the lousiest performance ever, but fully hailed by the Democrats...who thus turn it into a comedy.

I haven't watched the Strzok questioning aside from a few clips from Fox. His denial of bias probably occupied much of the time, which I think is a shame on the Republican side. There are important questions to ask of him, never mind proving any further that he had bias. One of the disturbing things to come out was how all the Democrat lawmakers were playing his advocate rather than playing their oversight role. The people need to see what important questions he refuses to answer, or deflects from when answering, or the positions he twists. Those are the areas that the oversight people need to go, whatever he deflects from. Fox news did not stress any of that. Instead, it stressed the bias issue, again. We need to move on past that obvious thing. Strzok didn't even apologize for the things he said, apparently. Defiant, he made himself look very stupid. An apology would have done him much better.

One hard question: did James Comey and Obama want to know, or did they know, everything about Strzok's investigations into Hillary and Trump? If not, what exactly did they want to know? What exactly were they informed of? If Strzok refuses to answer, it justifies the demand of Oversight to see Comey and Obama messaging on these matters. That's what the people want to see. The bias issue looks like theater in comparison, as though Oversight is not pressing on to the king-pins of these conspiracies. If Strzok was merely a pawn of the king-pins, then, obviously, move on. Why is Lisa Page being questioned today (Thursday) instead of Obama? Is Oversight afraid of Obama? Put him up there and force him to lie, deflect, and "I forget." Let the people see the king-pin squirming and worming.

It is impossible for Strzok to have operated as he did without Comey's participation. We can already see that they were in the same boat. The both released Hillary from guilt, and we know already that Comey's boss, the attorney general under Obama, wanted it that way. It's just one small step up from the attorney general to Obama. So why is Strzok the emphasis after so much time has gone by? I suppose it's to get from him anything damning on Loretta Lynch and Obama. We can be sure that proper oversight is looking at their roles and dictates in the conspiracy. But why is it moving so slowly? It is due to Mickey Trump. He's the rat's helper. There is no other way to report this issue. Trump is the cover up for Obama. Trump is the reason that Oversight is spinning its wheels. The head cheese needs to be brought before congress to answer questions on why he has done nothing to expose this conspiracy against himself.

The conspiracy is not against Trump only, but on the things he represents, his voters especially, or his animosity toward Obama policies on their behalf, or his deviation from the hard-nosed foreign policy of the CIA. The conspiracy touches upon more than Trump; it froths at the mouth due to his Christian base. This is the arch-enemy of the conspiracy. It's been the Democrat conspiracy for decades, to engineer a society that hates Jesus Christ, and to export a porn-ridden, abortion-thankful, faggot-loving, female-bossy, and God-ridiculing society to the rest of the world. This is why they hate Trump, not because he's a Christian, but because he promised to cater to their agenda, which is to undo Democrat agendas of decades past. It's not going to happen, or Armageddon will not take place. Armageddon and its frogs are the very things indicating a completely and hopelessly wicked world.

But that's only part of it. The high-level insiders in law and justice conspired against Trump because, as president, he had the power, and the apparent desire, to expose the crimes and conspiracies of the Obama administration. Proof of their acting against him to this day looks like the reason that the president is supporting the cover-up instead of playing the exposer. I'm for the exposure, he tweets, but he then covers it up. That's because he knows not Jesus, otherwise he would do and say the right things.

Try to explain to your voters, Mr. Fink, why you cannot participate in the exposure. See if you can convince them that you have a good argument. The forces of evil are against you who are against us, but you have denied your promise to us, my brothers and sisters, to expose the evil, to eradicate it, and to set up moral people in their place. Instead, you set up umbrellas, bags, sheets, anything that will cover the rats as they continue to feed on our skin. You are loathsome, Mr. president, and down-right stupid. You finked your way into power.

Take a look at how Mickey Strzok evades under the Trump administration:

The question to Strzok from Trey Gowdy is: how many people did you interview between July 31 and August 8? Why should he be permitted not to answer the question? Again, as with the other rats, the "justification" for not answering is because it touches upon an ongoing investigation. However, any onlooker can plainly see that the FBI is guilty of something in the one-week period; otherwise the FBI would not have refused to answer. It is not Strzok who refused, but the FBI sitting behind his left shoulder, and this FBI is run by Trump's cover sheet, Christopher Wray. Imagine if this were Obama up there, refusing to answer such a simple question.

You might say that Wray is controlled by Rosenstein. Not so. Not at all. Wray has the choice of disobeying Rosenstein when Rosenstein has a corrupt purpose for demanding Wray's corrupt attitude. If Rosenstein demands a cover-up from Wray, it is the latter's duty to not only ignore Rosenstein's demand, but to expose the demand. Wray needs to tell the people: Rosenstein won't let me let Strzok answer incriminating questions. Wray needs expose Rosenstein. So far, nothing.

We want to know whether Wray is afraid of Rosenstein versus being a willing participant in the cover-up. Wray cannot be fired by Rosenstein for doing nothing wrong. Trump is ultimately Wray's job security, not Rosenstein. If Wray dislikes Rosenstein's demand of covering up for the anti-Trump gang, he will naturally let Trump know. At that point, if Trump were a just man, he would keep Rosenstein from corruptly manipulating Wray. But that scenario has not taken place. We can now know, for yet another reason, that it hasn't taken place: because the FBI -- Wray himself -- has allowed Strzok to cover the conspiracy in two sessions of congress. Clearly, Wray has not complained to Trump and/or Trump has not called off Rosenstein's fangs upon Wray. It gives the appearance that Trump is the king-pin behind the cover-up, and to mask it, he (or his tweet writer) tweets as though he wants the conspiracy uncovered.

Just look at the behavior of the Democrats, led by Nadler, merely due to Gowdy's question above. Gowdy did not ask for the names of the people interviewed, though we would like to know who they were, and, as a very result of this question, Horowitz is now duty-bound to reveal them (when he reports on his ongoing investigation). Once it is discovered who the people were that were interviewed, the obvious follow-up is to find what the questioning was, for this will reveal the motives of the FBI, and likely who it was that stood behind the conspiracy. All of these details should have been made privy to Oversight as of months ago, but their wheel-spinning is at the mud of Trump's feet, no one else's. This president, standing in the mud of the swamp, concerns himself with foreign affairs while his own fort burns. If he were not Mickey Mouse, the fort would not be burning. He has been a dismal failure, and the big question: his motive for his part in the cover-up.

Yes, while Mickey Trump concerns himself with the British, the leaders of the Democrats, whose job it is to uncover injustice, were obstructing justice unashamed before all the people. We are witnesses of this in the video above. Is this not a fort in flames?

The great thing is that the Democrats were shamed when Gowdy came out with the fact that Strzok had interviewed no one in that one-week period. All that circus just to avoid that detail. It turns out that the circus wasn't to cover for the names of anyone, for there were no names in the answer to Gowdy's question. Why, then, did the FBI direct Strzok not to answer, "no one was interviewed in that eight-day period"? Very suspicious.

Gowdy then goes on to show that, starting on at least August 6th, before he had interviewed anyone in order to have dirt on Trump, he and Page were conspiring to take Trump down. There is no other way to interpret Strzok's own words to Page. It was an FBI-led conspiracy to take Trump down, and there is no other way to interpret Strzok's FBI council than to define Wray as part of the anti-Trump cover-up. We all should get the impression of, poor Trump. Poor president, even his own FBI director opposes him. But, no, that is incorrect. It's not, poor Trump, it's fink Trump.

Good job, Mr. Gowdy. The old Gowdy is back. He had almost capitulated into impotency. Gowdy took Strzok for a ride, kicked him out the door next to a cliff, where he could commit suicide if it so pleases him. Strzok became so nonsensical that he argued his firing was not due to bias, but only to the appearance of bias. Clearly, the FBI, or Rosenstein, take your pick, directed him to come before congress to deny bias, which is suicidal on the FBI's part. Nobody but the mob believes that. At the bottom of the cliff, the Democrats are digging their own graves, and Strzok may as well jump into one of them. Good job, Mr. Gowdy. You are no Mickey Mouse.

However, Gowdy still maintains that the Mueller probe is justified because it's looking into Russian meddling. It's as though Gowdy is too dull to realize that the probe has no such purpose. I'm not sure what his problem is, but I think it's because he made a mistake one day, but rather than confess it, he maintains the error. Gowdy said this week that he doesn't want to impeach Rosenstein, suggesting he's afraid of the Rosenstein-Mueller team, in my opinion.

Think of it. The Democrats along with the FBI would not dig their own graves like this unless there were something far-more sinister than merely Strzok's bias. The conspiracy goes up from him to Hillary and Obama. These are the crown jewels of the Democrats, to be protected at any cost. That's why we need to move on from merely Strzok. Obama has not claimed that he deleted all of his White-House emails. Let's see them, shall we, president Mighty. You want to see them, don't you, Mighty? Mr. president, Obama's emails are right in your White-House drawer. Why don't you take them out and show them to the voters you pretend to support? What has snagged your tail, Mighty Mouse? Whose foot stands upon it? To whom do you give worship? Does your god have the color of gold?

At the end of the video above, Strzok gives a passionate speech showing much teeth, as in fangs. One can see drips of venom spewing toward Gowdy. The snake gets applause for his act of complete innocence; not once does he apologize, not once does he admit error. His conspiratorial words, he says, were just play, and to insinuate that they were words of a conspiracy is to insult his honor. That's it. That's his defence in a squirrel's nutshell, let's move on, shall we, toward Obama.

Strzok's public testimony has good fruit. It reveals that the DoJ is still holding the fort for the mob many months after Wray's appointment. It gives Republicans more than a green light to break through the walls of Trump's DoJ. It puts Trump under more pressure to assist the effort. It makes Trump look more the hypocrite for continuing to stand aloof from the battle.

There is a silver lining to the slow-poke attitude of Horowitz. The longer he takes on the Strzok and FISA investigations, the more the Republicans will discover details in the meantime that Horowitz's report must conform to or align with. In other words, it complicates his report, in cases where he wants to downplay or falsify, because others are doing investigations too. The trick now is for Republicans to get sufficient criminal complicity on Obama as to force Horowitz to investigate his emails, etc. In the meantime, Obama becomes the central focus of Oversight. Watch the Democrats on Oversight go ballistic at that time.

Gohmert, bless his heart, really packed a pie for Strzok's face, and squashed it right into his snotty smirk while the Democrats cried out that Gohmert is in need of his was hilarious. Gohmert also revealed that 10s of 1000s of Hillary's emails were exported to (not hacked by) a foreign nation that he didn't name:

At the contentious hearing Thursday with FBI agent Peter Strzok, Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, revealed the FBI didn’t follow up on a government watchdog’s finding that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails were sent to a foreign entity.

...Strzok received the information from ICIG investigator Frank Rucker but didn’t act on it, the Republican lawmaker said.

Uh-oh. And it adds: "Gohmert also said Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz received four phone calls from someone who wanted to brief him on the breach but never responded." The way I read that, Horowitz is the one who failed. Horowitz looks like the guilty party. Horowitz didn't want to know about a disaster concerning Hillary's private email server. That says it all. Horowitz needs to be replaced.

The following is worth quoting here, where Strzok first denies knowing anything in hopes that Gohmert doesn't know much about it, and then, when Gohmert reveals that he knows it all, Strzok still acts ignorant because he needs to compliment his initial denial, at which point Gohmert lays into him:

"You said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about a hostile foreign power affecting our election," Gohmert said to Strzok. "Do you recall the former Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough having an investigation into an anomaly found on Hillary Clinton’s emails?"

"I do not," Strzok replied.

"Let me refresh your recollection," Gohmert said. "The Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker along with an ICIG attorney Janette McMillan to brief you and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel [juicy-juicy] that I won’t name at this time, about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton’s emails that were going to and from the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating."

"Now do you remember it?" Gohmert asked.

Strzok answered: "I remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions. I do not recall the specific content or discussions."

Gohmert fired back, saying, "Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source" [this was too big-potatoes for Strzok to forget, nobody believes he has no recollection of it].

Gohmert then accused Strzok of not taking any action on the revelation and then took a shot at Inspector General Michael Horowitz, saying that he threw a "bone to the Democrats."

"He went on to explain it," Gohmert said. "And you didn’t say anything, you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you’ve said here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man’s hand when you didn’t seem to be all that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary Clinton."

We get it. The FBI pattern is always the same. It never goes counter Hillary. It never goes for Trump. But here we learn that Horowitz, not part of the FBI, was part of the mob. He didn't report this item, naturally, because he himself was complicit with the FBI mob. Their game is to advance Horowitz as impartially professional. They all advance themselves like that.

We should like to know whether the emails were sent to the foreign nation by the will of Hillary or Obama. It sounds crazy, but this is a crazy story, a crazy bunch. As Horowitz and Strzok didn't want to investigate this matter, I suppose someone else should. This is within the job description of either Wray or Sessions. Did the Obama administration send a nation some American information for some wayward plot between the two?

Oh No, The Russians Again

On July 13 from the Associated Press:

A vendor that provides key services for Maryland elections has been acquired by a parent company with links to a Russian oligarch, state officials said Friday after a briefing a day earlier from the FBI.

..."The FBI conveyed to us that there is no criminal activity that they've seen," Busch said. "They believe that the system that we have has not been breached" (Yahoo).

In short, a Maryland entity (ByteGrid LLC) tasked with voting details (voter registration, software, etc.) "was purchased by a Russian investor in 2015 without knowledge of Maryland state officials." Uh-oh, Rosenstein was the chief Attorney for Maryland at the time. Might Rosenstein have had something to do with providing, or covering up for, this situation?

Was this Russian, implied as being part of the intrusion, part of the Russian activities of the Clinton Foundation? Did this Russian or others involved have the task of rigging the presidential election for Hillary? It can explain why the FBI found no evidence of criminal activity. Was this Russian situation repeated in other states? Are crimes from the Clinton Foundation now being blamed falsely on Trump?

My understanding is that law people not friendly to Rosenstein have been commissioned to look into this Maryland matter. Also in the news this week, a one-two punch to Trump's face: "Rod Rosenstein, the U.S. deputy attorney general, has asked federal prosecutors to help review the government documents of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, according to a letter obtained by the New York Times on Wednesday." Talk about a law-enforcement man getting politically active. I didn't say that his one-two landed on Trump's face. We do hope that Trump will respond with a knock-out punch right now.

Anyone check whether Jeff Sessions still has a heart beat? How can Rosenstein call for a malicious investigation on Kavanaugh without Sessions' wink?

At the very time that this news from Maryland comes out, we have the Mueller indictment of a dozen, official Russian spies, only it was announced by Rosenstein himself, as though he took the initiative to create this news at this time, as though he was ready with it for a certain time as part of his self-protection game. As part of the Maryland announcement: "In a letter Friday, Hogan, Busch and Miller asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for technical assistance to evaluate the network used by the elections board." That is, Maryland's governor, Larry Hogan, a Republican, wants the matter looked into. It may open a can of worms Rosenstein in the middle.

Hogan says he learned of this news this past week. Busch, a Democrat lawmaker in Maryland, accuses the Russian of being "very close" to Putin, something that plays well to Rosenstein's announcement. The story announced by Rosenstein has been floating around for a while, perhaps held back for a release at a particular, opportune time. "Maryland officials made the announcement HOURS AFTER [caps mine] the Justice Department released a grand jury indictment against 12 Russian military intelligence officers...Miller [Democrat lawmaker in Maryland] said that announcement convinced Maryland officials to disclose the FBI briefing, even if the agents who briefed them were not eager to make the information public."

It appears that Miller's hope is to tie this story in with Rosenstein's announcement on the same day. But, says the article, the two stories are not linkable, at least not yet: "In a statement, Maryland's elections board said it was not the state election office mentioned in the federal indictment. The board also said no Maryland election official has used or is using services provided by the vendor referenced in the indictment."

In Rosenstein's indictment announcement, he says that the Russian spies tampered with the election process, akin to the Maryland issue. The timing may be such that Rosenstein is hoping to have the public believe that the Russian spies are part of the Maryland story. The latter story was made known to officials BEFORE Rosenstein made his announcement, seen here:

As you can see, Rosenstein charges the 12 Russians for various things his own deep state is routinely guilty of. It's doubtful he'll ever prove that these Russians are guilty, doubtful that he will reveal the specific evidence. As part of the Rosenstein plot: "U.S. intelligence agencies have said the [election] interference [by the Russians] was aimed at helping the presidential campaign of Republican Donald Trump and harming the election bid of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton." Uh-oh. It looks like Rosenstein is trying to blame on Trump something criminal he concocted on behalf of Hillary. Wow, what a story if true.

Also part of this announcement is that these Russian spies are responsible for the Guccifer 2.0 scam that the DNC fabricated (probably not alone) to deflect light from their murder of Seth Rich. Rosenstein says that the Russians created "fictitious online personas, including DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0." I'm already ready to claim that the American government is responsible for everything Rosenstein is blaming on the Russians. Keep in mind that this comes out at the same time as the Burkman-Whalen revelation (or call it what you will).

Let's go back to the Maryland article, on a date when Trump was not the president, when Obama was, and when the people of Maryland thought that Hillary would be the next president: "In August 2016, the state board says 'unusual activity' was observed on the state's online voter registration and ballot request system, and the board immediately responded. The board says it provided log files to the FBI [clenched in Obama's hand], one of the state's cybersecurity vendors and another cybersecurity firm, and all three independently reviewed the transactions related to the activity and found nothing suspicious." But of course the FBI would find nothing suspicious exactly when finding crimes from Hillary / DNC. Tampering with voter mechanisms is a crime, especially if the tamperer is the would-be president.

As we can now see, the deep state at enmity with Trump is still advancing, still on the attack. But Rosenstein may be coming out here more as a cornered rat fearful of being discovered at the center of the very scandal he's resting on Trump's shoulders. If Putin has anything on him, this would be a good time to reveal it to Trump. We can estimate that Putin will tell his side of this story. One might think that Trump will not be sympathetic either to Rosenstein's claims or his motive, but he could surprise us by showing himself in the same boat as Rosenstein. The CIA will try to put him there. Trump will not deny Rosenstein's indictment charges without evidence, and neither will the CIA grant him the evidence...unless, maybe, his new CIA boss turns out to be part of the good guys.

Rosenstein made his announcement longish and filled with details probably to fill the news next week with this story, and to crowd out the Maryland story. He says that the issue will be managed by the DOJ, and, of course, as it involves Russia, he happens to be the head cheese of the DoJ. How convenient. The last thing America needs now is an impotent president alongside an impotent attorney general, which is exactly what it has until Trump decides to act. If he refuses to act here, we will see him giving credulity to this story. It is the CIA which will "corroborate" Rosenstein's charges against the Russians, likely because the CIA created DCLeaks and Guccifer.

Strzok is of course expected to downplay his stop-Trump statement. Not only does he say it was "off the cuff" and "late at night," but he introduces a context. The FBI had to invent a context that demonizes Trump, to justify stopping him. Strzok says that he was making those anti-Trump statements while disgusted with Trump's insult on an immigrant family. Oh no, not that. "Immigrant family" is a crown-jewel ploy to turn the congressional proceedings against Trump. We should have seen it coming. The FBI is not on the defense in these proceedings, but on the offense...thanks to the new White-House obstructionist who protects the very people trying to destroy him.

When the zealous Republicans and/or the flow of heated events finally turns Mighty Mouse around, when he begins to expose the deep state, watch out, Democrats. Trump might have a red line of his own, with counter-measured plans in place to be dumped upon his enemies once they cross it. I suggest that the Republicans should first discover who it is that stands on his tail, preventing him. For this, a national discussion is needed, on Fox, in social media, asking: why is Trump so mickey-mouse impotent? Trump loyalty needs to take a distant second place to that discussion. Why was Jay Sekulow removed from the national discussion? He was on the deep-state attack, then suddenly went silent on Fox. Was it Fox that sent him away, or did someone on Trump's team demote him / take him off the front lines?

The latter half of his announcement deviates to attacking the Republican congress for seeking to conduct a court case in the public domain. He refuses to acknowledge that congress has oversight responsibility that provides exactly for something looking like a public court case. If Oversight does its work without the public looking on, that's not oversight. Rosenstein is clearly trying to justify the DoJ cover-up, the refusal to answer Oversight questions, etc. It's not going to fly. Rosenstein forgets that he's a servant of the public. Everything he does may be open to the public.

In question period, Rosenstein is asked whether he thinks Trump's supports this announcement's basis, but Rosenstein does not say, yes. Instead, he says he'll let Trump speak for himself. He had said that he briefed Trump on this matter earlier in the week. Just look at the timing, bang-on with Trump's visit to see Putin, though this timing may not have been Rosenstein's choosing. The timing tends to set Trump off from supporting Rosenstein, and, hopefully, Trump will backfire this on Rosenstein.

It appears that the timing is according to this annual event: "The top state election officials from throughout the U.S. are gathering this weekend in Philadelphia..." That's right now, as I write. However, the Maryland story may have been leaked this week too because someone knew that Rosenstein was leaving it out of his disclosures. Why would Rosenstein leave it out if his purpose is to educate the top election officials in Philadelphia? But if his purpose was merely to educate them, he didn't need to do a televised announcement to fulfill it, and the indictment could have come at another time. It seems that Rosenstein hopes this indictment to become a chief topic of the annual gathering. Perhaps he did not want the Maryland issue to become the gathering's issue.

The red flag in the indictment is that not one American was included. That's because this is a faked charge against Russia. It a safe indictment because there will not be a trial, and therefore no need to produce / reveal the evidence. One would think that such a large operation as involves more than a dozen Russian spies would have at least one Russian-American, or one communist American, or something that can be arrested in America. But with none, it's evidence of a faked charge, as expected from other considerations.

When Rosenstein's indictment hit the news, so did this: "Mueller’s team appears increasingly focused on whether any associates of Trump knew that the Russian government had hacked emails from the DNC and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta and provided them to WikiLeaks during the last presidential election, according to those sources." You see, Trump is allowing Rosenstein to frame him as part of the DNC hackers. The quote may as well say that Mueller's team is increasingly sure that the moon is made of cheese, but Rosenstein seems the character to yet invent a scenario to be blamed on Trump.

Good news, or maybe just another empty threat:

Politico’s sources confirmed that Meadows was seen on the House floor with Rosenstein’s impeachment documents Friday afternoon at the same time that the deputy attorney general was announcing new indictments in Mueller’s case.

“It has not been filed today,” Meadows spokesman said to Politico, though he reportedly didn’t rule out the possibility of the documents being filed as early as new week.

Roger Stone, a former aid in the Trump election team, appears to have been framed by the deep state, but the question some have is whether Stone was a deep-state operative, or mole into Trump's team, to begin with:

Stone has been under scrutiny in part because of statements in August of 2016 which political opponents allege suggested he knew that WikiLeaks was going to leak damaging information on Clinton before it was released. Stone has been targeted because he communicated with Guccifer, the hacker the U.S. intelligence community believes broke into DNC computers, sources told ABC News

Ahh, it wasn't Stone who communicated with Guccifer, but the other way around, in order to frame Stone. Guccifer was a US-Intelligence creation on behalf of the DNC, and the trick is to have him talk to Trump people so that the statement above can be seeded into the liberal news. The deep state played the same trick with Trump junior. Stone was able to skirt legal troubles on this frame.

Look at this trick, with the Mueller team disclosing one of their slated questions for Trump: "What did you know about communication between Roger Stone, his associates, Julian Assange or Wikileaks?" If Trump uses WikiLeaks to his benefit, Mueller will then accuse them of collusion from times past. If Trump supports Assange where the latter says that the DNC was attacked by Seth Rich, not Guccifer, let the marbles fall where they may, but at least it's the path to securing justice against the Mueller side. Trump is apparently a-scared to use Assange, and his own CIA boss, Pompeo, has urged the president, we may assume, not to indulge Assange. What a useless president. His name may as well be Jeff Sessions. All roads to justice have been closed by this president himself.

The cheaters have decided that, to win their games, they need to cheat harder, more brash. I just did a search at Google for, fake moon landing, but, though I loaded the first 20 results pages, was unable to find the excellent sites that Google made easy to find a few years ago, on that topic. Instead, all 20 pages are almost wholly from those who debunk and minimize the conspiracy theorists. This is the way of the media future, with the cheaters cheating more. They are poised to start a war against their definition of "fake news." It's here, the grand deception. All things true and problematic to liberal agendas will be labeled fake as far as they can swing it.

The online evidence for a faked moon landing is so compelling and prolific that the liberal state, which includes NASA, has ordered Google to bury it so that no one will find it. We therefore have big-name cheaters such as Youtube and Google protecting the cheaters. There is only spiritual rot that can come of this. Those who debunk the moon-landing exposers do not usually show the latter's compelling evidence, but only the borderline evidence that can be portrayed either way. It's getting to the point that young people are producing Mars videos with live-looking creatures there, and expecting their viewers to believe NASA when it shows life on the planet.

Below, I'll offer you a wow-video proving that Neil Armstrong was a fake. There is no debate about it. The video is so compelling that it establishes as a fact that they did not go to the moon. This means that NASA lies to the world, and it's own nation especially, to this day. That's the same type of deception practiced in false-flag events by the military, and this attitude has become the American way for the powerful. It's laughable and psychotic all at once.

In the same way, any online material that's compelling from Christians can be buried by the cheaters. There is a solution: the Truth with the sword in His mouth, and a robe dipped in blood. The cheaters and liars must be cut off. But before that Time, it would be good if God alerted the world of honest people that people in positions higher than NASA are tricksters and the protectors of conspiracists. I don't know how far this exposure will go, but it's to be expected to some degree. Liberals are now showing their entire arsenal of tricks, the cheating behavior they resort to when they are losing due to being exposed. They feel it's their right to rule, to order society, wherefore they accept their cheating ways as justified if it gets them back in power.

If everyone becomes a thief because it's an easy way to make a living, then be prepared to be stolen from. As you go out to steal, someone else is stealing on you. It's hardly wisdom to realize why God called us not to steal. Thank God for God because he does not advise us to be wrong-doers, or we would all be abandoned to rot forever. When Democrats forsake principles, calling white black today, and white tomorrow, if it serves their purposes on both days, then Democrats will never get along with one another because they will have introduced chaos into their value systems. They will not use a principled approach when working with one another. They will cheapen all that they stand for, and their very lifestyles will be cheap. That's where this is going. Stick to the PRICELESS Jesus. Make Christ great again.

We might have the power to defeat them for decades to come, if only Trump would act. But his inaction is giving our enemies life, hope, and a cheating way back to power. Trump acts for getting a little-better bargain in world trade but does not act against the dragon rising harshly in Washington itself. He can't get money off his brain enough to devise plans against the social rot. He maybe thinks it's not his job description to deal with social rot.

Jesus does not only oppose theft of material things, but theft of someone else's spouse, yet Trump can be heard on tape saying that he seeks / prefers / accepts the wives of other men. You cannot have a president with a value system like that and expect him to make the nation great again. You deceive yourself if you do expect it, and deceive others if you teach it. If he steals another man's wife, he will also steal money. If he does these things, his mind will gravitate toward conflict of interest as he operates as president. The first thing he did as president is to give his own corporations a huge tax cut. And he made many corporate friends by giving them the same.

The president has turned himself into a tax collector and tight-wad. He is minimizing America's charity to others (I don't necessarily oppose) in efforts to pay for his tax cuts. There is no doubt in my mind that he's increased spending to the military so that it can rob the wealth of targeted nations. Evil kings use their military to bring in gold. Evil kings don't pay militaries for nothing; they want a return. Did Trump really increase military spending because he cares for the ordinary soldiers' paying of the bills?

We will soon be able to discover Trump's game with Putin, whether or not Trump will use the military for pipelines in Syria. A lot of military money has already gone into that agenda, and there is likely a long-term plot to topple Russia too so that the West can spoil that nation's wealth. We can be sure that, ever since the Soviets were toppled, the West has been scheming to bring the nation into Western hands (has the effect of increasing Western corporations in the Russian economy). It may be that Gorbachev and Yeltsin feigned being a little pro-West in order to tame the West through their critical period. The nation is more than their leaders; the wealth belongs to ordinary Russian citizens, and so when the West aims to spoil it, they act as thieves walking upon the backs of Russian workers.

When Western corporations operate and sell in a foreign country, they bring in a pot of gold to begin with, and provide jobs. It's wonderful, on the one hand, for poor countries. But there is a price to pay, for these corporations take their profits out of the country, making the nation poorer (less money in pockets per capita). No one notices the change, but it's there. The greater the number of Western corporations, the more the people have less money in their pockets. It's like a blood sucker slowly sucking the blood. Just do the math. A company pays a Nigerian worker $100 to produce product that is sold to other Nigerians for $130, and as much as $30 can leave the country (the remaining $100 goes to pay another worker so that the cycle is repeated).

Trump wants the American corporation in Nigeria to pay tax to the American government fully, without tricks to evade. This tax money comes from the Nigerian population, adding to the amount that's leaving the Nigerian pot. Trump wants to cripple foreign companies with tariffs so that they come to operate in the United States instead, in which cases sizable lumps of big money will leave foreign nations, leaving third-world countries all-the-poorer suddenly. Much of the gold from that big pot that the corporation initially poured into Nigeria on real-estate costs suddenly vanishes by night.

Tariffs force American workers to pay higher prices because it forces products to be made in the USA. This has a double bonus for the tax collector: 1) more income tax from the increased American workers; 2) more sales tax on the higher prices of things. When government is receiving more of the money, then there is less in the pockets. It is therefore deceptive for the tax collector to point out an increase of workers to the tune of two or three percent while not pointing out the decrease of money in the pockets of the 100 percent. Mere tariffs are in no way capable of collecting enough taxes to make up for Trump's tax cuts. He needs to order other methods of tax collecting, or to borrow / print lots and lots of money.

An article was out this week telling that the U.S. government set a record for income-tax intake in the past nine months, a total of $1.3T, or $72B more than the previous nine months. According to the chart at the page below, the last nine months took in no more than $100B as compared to the same nine-month periods in Obama's last couple of years. That latter figure is about $600 per working American over 12 months. However, we shouldn't think that everyone paid that many more taxes on average, for some of the increased tax take is from additional workers due to Trump's corporate tax cuts (corporations save taxes, hire more workers).

Even if the entire $72B was a result of the new workers to Trump's credit, the question is how his corporate tax cuts compares with that figure. If Trump really has any credit to speak of, he might advertise the difference between the two numbers. I don't know how much income taxes corporations pay, in order for me to get a rough estimate on their annual tax savings, but we do realize that Trump reduced the taxes of all corporations combined by a lot more than $72B. There is no way that this additional take-in money can equal the total tax cuts. Plus, the Trump government, says the article above, spent $607B more than the government took in, in the past nine months. That means Trump borrowed your money, American worker, to that number, and you will need to pay interest on it. Together, these factors are probably eating up all/most the Trump tax breaks per typical worker.

Change of Topic for a Change

Here's the fake moon mission, but I'll warn you now to stop watching at about 23 minutes.

You need to assess all NASA-moon video, when they show people speaking, as people who care nothing for the populations to whom they are blatantly lying. You just watch them as they casually deceive. Once you zero in on that attitude, you will understand the American government. It cares nothing for the people, absolutely nothing. Their joy is in deceiving and getting away with it. The number of these human scum is innumerable and growing. The deception has grown from the moon landing and CIA / military operations globally to many other areas of American / globalist life. This is your end-time fact of life.

I think the greatest proof that the moon mission was faked is that the type of landing shown for it is seen only in Hollywood. Never has the military or anyone else shown a craft landing on earth as it does on the moon, or on planets in Hollywood productions. It is therefore impossible to guide a craft using jet rockets straight down for a safe landing. The craft will crash due to the utter complications of keeping it straight (vertical) and slow. Once the craft has lost control in a rotating back-and-forth motion, gaining control is unlikely and therefore too dangerous for the pilot. But, as they do not even build unmanned craft like this on earth, they realize it's a waste of money due to the near-certain fact that it would crash.

To send three men to the moon to land in a craft that was not proven safe to land on earth would have gotten NASA charged with three counts of murder. They would never have sent them, and they would not have gone. It was a trick. There are online tricksters pretending that rockets can be landed on earth with tail down, top skyward, in the same position as take-off position, virtually impossible to do. But they did it, and they show it on video, which is of course a video trick. But this is conditioning for the next generation of the naive. Unless scientists speak out to say that this cannot be done, the next generation will believe that it can, and that makes landing on Mars seem feasible. This is the next frontier: Mars deception. And Trump is a willing financial tool for this, if not a figurehead.

Here is the SpaceX fakery; everything in this four-minute time-waster is created to deceive the new generation. At the 3rd minute, two rockets are landed on earth in video trickery, and the audience looking on was never there, just inserted to appear as though it was. The taller the rocket, the more top heavy, the harder to keep in a perfectly-vertical position in such an attempt to land. This never happened, have the wisdom to see through it, because unless NASA can convince the world that it can be done, NASA will be done, as it burnt toast:

You can't argue with the facts. Just accept them. They did not land on the moon or on Mars or any other planet / moon. It's all Hollywood production. You can get a good grasp of the definition of the American government via this one fact alone. Trump is the NASA demon in your face, wanting to fool the people into giving NASA more money to deceive still more. Trump is smart enough to know that they did not go to the moon. Trump is therefore a fake, an imposter, a devil. Accept it. He's not deceived by NASA; he knows their game, yet has said that he wants NASA to resume manned flights into space. Worship / adore / love / approve of Trump at your own peril.

NASA can be gleaned in another hoax where it claims that it put a satellite around the moon to spy out its surface. Whether or not such a thing exists, it gives NASA the means to pretend to see things on the lunar surface, and, of course, it sees the space craft left on the moon...that were never there, meaning that these images are fabricated. Here's the story if you care to see it:

The guy in the video above gives me the creeps. Put some black lip-stick on him, and he looks ready for voodoo. At the end of the video, he lumps doubters in the moon mission with flat-earthers, it figures. He and his likers would definitely like to sink some pins into them. In the comments section of the video: "The people who think we didn't actually go to the moon would just say the pictures were fake if we showed them the landers on the moon." Exactly, which is why we can resort to the argument above, the one I made, that the world has never seen a jet-engine (no propellers) craft land vertically.

Though we can't trust pictures any longer, we can trust known facts together with common sense. Fact: no rocket has ever landed vertically and safe. Common sense: they didn't go to the moon several times with one, and land safe each time without a hitch. There is nothing a scientist can say to counter this argument convincingly. The best they can do is make a fake video of such a craft, and pretend to have an audience (witnesses) watching it.

Why was the Space Shuttle given wings to land? You know it. Jet-engine craft can't land. Tell the whole world, jet-engine craft can't land, the American government is a falsifying agent of satan, a demon. False miracles in the sky. The U.S. military knows that SpaceX is a hoax, but this is criminal. The producers can get away with this hoax only if the military / CIA / government gives the wink. Just put on common sense. If the government sponsors this hoax, the government will also steal your money for a NASA program that's not taking place. How many government programs are called for that never get action after the money to fund them is granted? The sky is the limit.

Anyone paid good money (your money) for participation a hoax will never reveal the hoax publicly unless they are willing to stab themselves in the back, and risk jail thereby. We get it. That's why the fake astronauts and their team members never confessed. What they did was criminal. And law enforcement was complicit because it didn't press charges even when the undeniable evidence surfaced of faked moon landings. The government's shadow, if you know what I mean, is completely rotten. The spirit of this shadow power is satanic; the same spirit operates in all participants. The participants relish is deceiving us. The leaders are not going to choose dedicated Bible-believers to commit these hoaxes, though they may use some who pretend to be Christians in order to fool Christians. The world will come to a grinding halt. Whoops. Judgment Day, the gig's over.

How long before Judgment Day? Never more than your lifetime, often just 30 years or less for NASA's leaders. When you die, you sleep and awake at the Judgment, but because you don't feel the sleep, it's as though you wake up in Hell as soon as you die laughing at us. Whoops, you made a big mistake, anti-Christ.

SpaceX videos are hyped with bravado: "the moronic cheering and clapping" is how one comment puts it. They will pay people to falsely tell that they witnessed these landing live. Their fatal flaw is that they include a perfectly flat landing pad which neither the landscape of the moon nor Mars will offer (the landing will be impossible without a flat pad). So, they will claim to go put one on Mars, all nicey-level and perfect, then condition the new generation into believing that their rockets can land smack-dab on the center of the pad, and finally that's what they will do, when they fake such landings on Mars, unless Jesus comes first to destroy their world, to install Truth forever more, no more lies. God will use us to warn them first, and then the Surprise Finish will arrive. They will teach there is no God, that all God's children are backward morons, then Jesus will appear to wipe the mockery from their faces.

The same zealous character in the video above has another, tackling the radiation belts around the earth. It's a topic I have never seen addressed by the Apollo moon mission, which is suspicious in itself. If NASA knew why the belts didn't affect the astronauts, why didn't it glory in telling the world how it avoided the problem. Rather, NASA was prone to leaving the belts unmentioned if they were an insurmountable problem. This character tells us one version of why the belts would not have been able to keep men from the moon, which is at odds with what others say. The problem is, this topic is above the heads of the average person, and can be manipulated so that it sounds credible. I'm showing this video to show how the pro-NASA people are dealing with their hoax as it gets more exposure over the years.

The other problem is that any videos tackling this character's explanation are probably being buried by Google and youtube. Sorry. The world is getting almost-exclusively the NASA side of the story now. The cheaters are winning again. From a NASA article: "The inner belt, composed predominantly of protons, and the outer belt, mostly electrons, would come to be named the Van Allen Belts..." This cannot be a correct view. There can be no such situation because protons attract electrons. The only reason that modern scientists believe that protons exist in space is that they view them as indestructible. The protons originate from the sun, they say, and are part of the solar wind along with the streaming out of free electrons. So, because electrons originate on protons, the scientists conclude that there needs to be bare (or almost bare) protons too if there are massive numbers of free electrons.

But bare protons always reload with free electrons when the latter are released from them. We cannot fathom bare protons streaming away from the sun with free electrons aside from the protons reloading, but scientists stick to their faulty theories in the face of anything problematic. The obvious reality is that the solar protons are destroyed. That is, they can no longer attract electrons. There is no problem with such a theory except that modern science does not wish to view it that way.

So, the radiation belts are a high concentration of negatively-charged electrons without the positively-charged protons that they imagine. How do scientists view the electrons trapped in the belts? Making forever circles? We can figure exactly how the electrons behave simply because they repel one another. That is, they seek to be at equa-distant (equal-distant) positions from one another, and this rule holds true as they flow around the earth. As they flow around, they are forced closer together even though they repel one another. Why are they forced closer together?

The negative energy in the earth repels them away, which is why they flow around the earth rather than being attracted to the earth. As they are repelled to the sides of the planet, they become more concentrated, meaning that they are more dense i.e. closer to one another. So, the belts are probably nothing more than a special concentration of electrons i.e. a higher-than-normal negatively-charged region. NASA has no choice but to argue that the belts can be penetrated without significant damage to the atoms of the human body. But NASA is biased toward its own faked agenda. We know from the impossibility of landing a rocket that they did not go to the moon, and therefore we, if we are wise, will not hear NASA out on the topic of the belts, because they are rats who will lie to us out of the necessity of self-survival. Let's hear from others who do not hold NASA's bias.

Again, it is impossible for healthy protons to flow from the sun with electrons, for the protons would reload and become atoms again. But the solar wind is not made of atoms, but rather of electrons. So, this alone tells you to peg the cosmic scientists as having flat brains, unwilling to deviate from their own faulty view of atoms. When protons in the sun are destroyed, they release their electrons, and these naturally repel one another away from the sun. In the meantime, the sun becomes net-negative in charge. As more free electrons are added behind the others, it causes a stream of them away from the sun in all directions. It's just so simple and easily predictable: protons can be destroyed.

So, are the belts penetrable by humans? We shouldn't ask NASA or a NASA puppet like the character above. The short video below (by a flat-earther, however) proves that NASA didn't even tell the lunar astronauts about the belts:

I'm not a flat-earther. Those who are, in spite of their stupidity, do have some good evidence against the moon program, and this video above is an example. It features an interview with an astronaut of the Apollo-12 mission, who goes, duh, where's the Van-Allen radiation belt, before or after the moon? He didn't even know whether he passed through it, proving that NASA did not bring him up to speed concerning its dangers. That's how we can know that NASA did not address these belts with the public either. When the issue became a problem for it. NASA suddenly claimed that there is a safe path through the belts.

They tell us that astronauts are safe if they spend only a few hours within a belt, but, sorry, negative energy works INSTANTLY upon the captured electrons of atoms in our bodies. Electromagnetism works INSTANTLY. A highly-negative charge forces some electrons off of protons, and alters their own charges and therefore alters their own properties. Some things in the body will not work normally, and NASA had no idea what the belts would do to astronauts, which is why it would never attempt to send men through a belt without first sending animals through one and reporting back to the public that it was safe for animals.

Again, an electric force on the body acts instantly. The atoms will not be affected by the force any worse if the person sits in that field for an hour versus a second. However, as atoms in the body are forced to do their jobs while in an altered state, it can cause complications in bodily functions, exactly why NASA would have been required by law to test the belts on animals first. Did you ever hear anything on those findings?

Youtube has no problem airing flat-earth videos, and, the trick is, to lump them in with those who deny the moon landing. We get it. Instead of burying flat-earth videos, youtube is burying anti-NASA videos.

The pro-NASA character we saw above claimed that NASA flew each Apollo mission through the thinnest parts of the Van-Allen belts. Is this credible? No, it is not, for NASA intended not to mention the belt. Can the average person prove otherwise? Not easily. That's why he can lie on that topic.

The belt is poorly named because it's not radiation. The latter is defined as light rays. A concentration of electrons is not defined as light rays. A negatively-charged area is not a light ray. However, light rays are caused by free electrons in the first place, as they are emitted from the sun, for example, or from a light bulb. Their very emission causes a physical wave through the solar wind, and that solar wind is itself the wave medium that scientist say does not exist. That is, while they acknowledge the solar wind, modern, evolutionary-minded scientists have come to deny a physical light-wave medium. Instead, they invented photons (particles). So, in their view, the Van-Allen belt of electrons is not made of light particles.

In order to create visible light to the human eye, the emission of electrons needs to exceed a certain force. As we see no light from the Van-Allen belt, it's not emitting visible light toward the earth. It is not dangerous at all in terms of its radiation, therefore. The problem may lie in its negative charge. If NASA still has not conducted tests on animals to this day, why not? Well, there are reports online that tell how dangerous the belt is to the instruments on a space craft, and it sounds as though the craft cannot even enter the belts to test the effects on biology. But, I'll bet, Google has made it difficult to find such pages. Google works in concert with NASA and the anti-Christs.

NASA conveniently claims that there are safe parts of the belts to pass through, meaning also that it admits to dangerous parts. Excellent point. The question is whether NASA invented the less-dense part of the belts in order to save itself from doom. Excellent point. As the solar wind hits the earth equally from all sides, and as the earth is a sphere, aren't the concentration / density of electrons all around the planet expected to be equal? Excellent point. I do not trust the shape of the belts as they are shown in diagrams. I am certain that no positively-charged belts exist, and am therefore suspicious on how science thinks the belts affect things. I'm not even sure that "belt" is the proper term.

I can fathom that the concentration of electrons causes air atoms closer to earth to become positively charged, but this would be at odds with how they view the inner, positive belts. They see them as sheer protons rather than air atoms. There is the curiosity of the upper atmosphere becoming extremely hot, we are told, which violates the law that air gets colder with distance from the ground. If true that the upper atmosphere, the thermosphere, gets hotter, then the heat source there needs to be discovered. Heat is defined (by me) as the emission of electrons from atoms. Yes, it is, this is my personal discovery, and I will bet my house that this is the correct view of heat.

They know that free electrons are always increased at a heat source. When solar protons are destroyed so that their captured electrons are released, that's heat. If electrons remain captured by atoms, that's not heat. You can touch electrons surrounding any atom, but unless the electrons enter your skin, there's no heat in your skin. The electrons in the solar wind is the heat of the sun. These electrons are forced into the upper atmosphere by their forward thrust obtained in their emission at the solar body, but they are simultaneously repelled by the earth's gravity, because gravity is the negative charge of electrons due to heat in the earth's core. Scientists reject that view of gravity because it doesn't allow them to argue for the evolution of the universe from their big bang.

When the two SpaceX rockets are shown landing at the same time, no fuel can be seen emitting from the sides of either rocket. Jets of fuel are needed to keep the top of a rocket from toppling when the main engine spews vast amounts of explosive fuel toward the ground. My understanding is that these double rockets supposedly put a car into space orbit. A search for those who oppose SpaceX brings up a lot of youtube videos made unavailable. It figures. Here's a video proving fakery:

See also:

Always willing to up the stakes of an already difficult situation, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has said the first flight of his company’s Falcon Heavy rocket will be used to send a Tesla Roadster into space. Musk first tweeted out the idea on Friday evening, and the payload was confirmed on Saturday.

But confirmation followed a bizarre exchange between The Verge and Musk. After Musk tweeted the plan, we asked him to confirm that it was real. Musk replied to us first by email, confirming that it was real. Then, after The Verge published a story about the plan, Musk sent us a response in a direct message on Twitter saying he “totally made it up.” We now know that response was false; a person familiar with the matter told The Verge Saturday evening that the payload is in fact real.

I figures, if this was a hoax. "Falcon Heavy is the followup to SpaceX’s Falcon 9. It’s a more powerful rocket that the company hopes to use for missions to the Moon and Mars." Yes, a hoax. And the car that was in orbit is now being sent to Mars, we are to believe. Ah, er, not we, but the new, naive generation. SpaceX has so many troubles that, to combat them, it regularly lumps flat-earthers in with those who doubt its authenticity. I'll bet Donald Trump is a Spacex groupie.

Where are the good, science-minded webpages on this topic? Buried. The new era: burying those who realize the truth. The Internet is a great tool for burying the normal and true while opening for the flood of fakery. Here we are.

I've watched a Mythbusters program where they recreated, in a studio, the conditions of the moon to show whether the brightness of the space suit of an Apollo-11 astronaut was authentic or faked, as he comes down the ladder in the lunar shade. Mythbusters concluded that the brightness of moon dust was sufficient to light up the space suit even though it was fully in the shadow. In other words, they "proved" that there was no second light source shining on the astronaut that others claim is a studio light i.e. the photo was taken on the earth they were not on the moon.

However, the Mythbusters duo were delinquent in their presentation, for they did not show the light reflection off of the astronaut's heel. See the first two minutes of this honest presentation to see the heel's reflection:

The first comment on the page calls us stupid for not realizing that the reflection off the heel is from the sun reflecting off the spacesuit of Neil Armstrong, the cameraman. This is how pro-NASA delinquents treat us at all times regardless of the merits in the arguments. It only sinks them deeper into unreliability. That's a good thing. It should be plain to anyone that the light at the heel is far-too bright, in comparison with every other part of the suit, to be merely from reflection off of Armstrong's suit or helmet. Besides, if that were true, there should be some bright / hot spot in the related photos, the other ones showing Aldrin descending the ladder.

If you pause at 54 seconds, analyze the shot. Don't feel guilty or stupid for analyzing the shot. It's a freedom that pro-NASA people don't want us to have. Look at how bright the bottom of the backpack is. Does that seem to be merely from the light of moon dust? It looks even brighter than moon dust, but, in my analysis, anything lit up by moon dust alone must be many times less bright than the moon dust itself. For example, sunlight reflecting off the floor of your house does not light up any wall to nearly as bright.

Note that the bright spot on the heel is from a light source that also lights up the pant leg, for if the solar reflection off of the rounded glass of the helmet is shining also as far away from the heel as the pant leg, there should be no bright spot at all, anywhere. The light from the hot spot on the helmet would have dissipated into dullness at every point of its landing on Aldrin or the module.

Analyze the color and brightness of the tin foil below Aldrin. Does that seem to you to be from the reflection of moon dust in combination with reflection off of Armstrong's suit? Yet this is only one or two things amongst hundreds that's wrong with NASA moon photos. Together, they are telling us that the American military, not just NASA, is involved in a mortal war against us. The military has much more money than we do to push their side of the war, yet our numbers have grown by the year. They hope to bring the numbers down by burying the evidence that convinced us, but they are crippled by us; they cannot continue their space program without our testing and judging everything they do for further exposure, and, as you have seen, they dared not do more faked moon landings because of us.

See the top photo of the page below. Aldrin's backpack is now brighter on the one side than it is on its backside. But light from moon dust is equal from every direction.

While Aldrin's is not yet on the ground, his head is at the level of the horizon, indicating that the camera is at head level or higher, i.e. it's not from a camera at Armstrong's belly. On level land, the horizon is lower than head level when the picture is from a camera on a belly/chest. That is, the horizon should be at Aldrin's belly/chest. Are we not allowed to point such things out without being called stupids? Go ahead. NASA lovers, call us names, all the better for our cause.

If the hot spot on the heel was from the glass of Armstrong's helmet, where is the bright spot from the helmet in the photo above? I don't see one. A delinquent is defined as one who comes up short in his thinking. Therefore, pro-NASA people who deny a good argument are delinquents. That's the way to view them, but those who are privy to the hoax are to be considered demons. Forty-nine years and counting, they still chose to be demons, they still demonize those who tell the truth. If they could, and if need be, they would kill us. The military has no conscience; it kills as easily as the mob.

See the short video below, where there are black areas on the space suits even though the astronauts are in no shade at all. If Aldrin in the shade is fully white due to the refection from moon dust, why are the pitch-black areas seen in the shot below, and of course in other shots too?

In the 10th minute of the video below, the observation is made that Stanley Kubrick's death on March 7, 1999, was the 66th day of the year, and that there are 665 days left until December 31, 2000 (I've verified the math, 2000 was a leap year = 366 days). That makes the first day of the 21st century the 666th day, for the last year of the 20th century was 2,000 (the first century included 100). Wikipedia: "Filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is accused of having produced much of the footage for Apollos 11 and 12, presumably because he had just directed 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is partly set on the Moon and featured advanced special effects".

There is some funny-business involved in that movie that plays to his placing signs within it to show that he hoaxed at least some of the Apollo mission, but the point here is the year 2001 in the name of that movie, begging whether Kubrick's death was staged on March 7 as a ploy to satanism. It then begs whether NASA is a satanistic entity, no surprise if it were.

A few minutes later, we can see an aged Neil Armstrong going all the way to his grave carrying his hoax, and even pushing the wider hoax for future generations. His face shows no remorse. Was he even a real astronaut? No. What kind of men are they who would promote a costly hoax even at their virtual deathbeds?

Next in this video, there is a longish treatment on free fall. The video's owner implies that moon-bound astronauts were experiencing weightlessness on the way to the moon (not just in moon orbit). I don't know whether that is what NASA claimed, but the owner implies it. He then shows excellently as to why weightlessness is not to be expected between the earth and the moon.

In fact, it brings to mind the fact that most of the trip toward the moon is an upward climb against the earth's gravity, all the way to the point in which the moon's gravity perfectly balances the earth's gravity. In that picture, the astronauts would not be able to walk around freely / normally for at least half the trip to the moon, because they would always be pushed toward / against something in the craft. When going up an elevator, your feet are being pushed against the floor with more than your weight. If you go fast enough, your knees will buckle. My calculations suggest that the trip to the moon by Apollo was at more than 3,000 mph. That's a very fast elevator, no floating about possible.

At 34:40 of the video, one can see a modified rocket launch, where the Apollo 11 rocket is first tilting at take off, and is then made perfectly vertical in a changed shot i.e. a different rocket is substituted for the tilting one, apparently.


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

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

Table of Contents

web site analytic