Updates Index

---

If you lose track of what I'm talking on in this first section, you can skip to the conspiracy news at the first red sub-title.

Intelligent people acknowledge a Creator, it's as simple as that. Die-hard, evolutionary atheists, who consider themselves the most intelligent, are willfully blind, we know that. In the last update, I got a little into electrons, telling of my personal discovery, that heat is defined as free electrons. If they enter the skin, we feel heat; if we merely touch them upon the circumference of any atom, they will not enter the skin, and therefore they do not feel like heat. They need to be released from atoms in order to become heat, or heat particles as I call them. If you rub or bang a material, you loosen / rub off some electrons, and thus form frictional heat, it's as simple as that.

Heat rises, even in metal, more than it spreads in other directions, because gravity, defined as (my definition, that is) the negative charge of free electrons in a planetary interior, repel free electrons i.e. heat particles. Gravity has its source in planetary heat, it's as simple as that. The greater the heat in that source, the greater the gravity force, so simple. I have been able to understand why gravity attracts every atom: by blowing off a few outer electrons on every atom, and thus turning the atom net-positive toward its negative charge. Attraction results. When an object is drawn closer to a gravity source, more electrons are blown off, a greater positive charge is thereby created in the atom, and there results a greater attraction between gravity and the object, which we call greater weight. So simple, so correct.

My point in re-visiting this topic is to explain why modern science has wrongly defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. Kineticism is the action of motion. All atoms are in constant motion, the dimwits and fools tell us, and they define greater heat as greater / harder motion, or faster / heavier motion. The greater the impacts at collision points, the higher the heat. This is utterly stupid, but I have come to expect evolutionists to be self-deceptive stupids, explaining why they have the entire atomic model incorrectly modeled.

There are reasons as to why they chose kineticism as their view of atoms. In reality, atoms are not in constant motion forever. The laws of physics includes the fact that every collision of any two objects causes a net slow-down in their velocities. Two objects striking dead on with the same force will cancel each other's velocity so that both will come to a dead stop. It's a law in the real world, but evolutionary goofs wish for us to believe that, when two atoms (simple material, real objects) strike one another dead on with equal force, they bounce away from one another with the same velocities (or kinetic energy) as they had contacted themselves with. The evolutionist is thus not a scientist, but a madman.

Why does he hold this impossible kinetic-energy view of atoms? The big bang. It is so precious to him, for the purpose of murdering God, that he holds to the notion that all atoms are forever in motion due to the energy of the big bang, and he then deceives himself when he says that energy cannot be destroyed. That is, using that argument, he says that atoms never lose energy; they keep bouncing around, and off of each other, forever, even when the material they constitute is in liquid and solid form. If he did not define heat as the effect of this motion, he could not invent the evolution of the planets, for the planets, he says, developed as HOT clouds. Do you see their trick?

Where did the heat come from to form the planets? In reality, atoms need to shed their outer electrons (they do not orbit as he says they do, liars) in order to create heat, but they take their electrons back momentarily after shedding them. No hot gases could form therefore, circling the sun, because atoms simply reload with electrons if something causes them to bounce off momentarily. That's why electromagnetic charges caused by rubbing objects lasts only a moment. Electrons are shed by rubbing, there is a net positive charge formed in at least one of the rubbed materials, and then the atoms re-attract electrons from the air. Free electrons fill the air as heat particles at all times. You can't get away from them, this is so simple; they come from the solar wind constantly, and fly off into space constantly too, because earth's gravity repels them away. It works, because I have the correct view while they do not.

So, they wish there had been a big bang. They define heat as the motion caused by this big explosion, and they say that heat does not get destroyed so that it lasts a long time, millions of years, within the ancient gases that circled the sun. They acknowledge that heat spreads out, as no one can deny this fact, which is how they explain the cooling of the gases into blobs that later formed the planets. That's exactly why they love their kinetic, but false, theory of heat. No other theory of heat provides this opportunity for them to explain the formation of planets from a Godless universe.

But they need a few other things in order to make their planetary evolution model work, and that is exactly why they teach other laws as fact when in fact they are false. One of these false theories is that every atom possesses gravitons, and thus they define the source of gravity in simple mass. The more atoms or mass a planet has, the greater the gravity. Why do they take this view rather than choosing electromagnetic force as the gravity source? Because, in order for stars to form that later produce the planets, atoms need to attract one another to form the blobs that laster become stars. So, they appointed each atom with graviton particles in their cores so that all atoms, they say, attract one another. False. To the contrary, all atoms repel one another (unless they begin to merge).

Yes, all air atoms (which are unmerged) repel one another, and this is the reason that the tires of your car get inflated to the point of holding the weight of the car, because the atoms in the tire push one another away and therefore push outward on the tire walls. The more air you pack into the tire, the closer they are forced to one another, and science does prove that bringing electromagnetic objects closer increases their force upon one another. It's just too simple and correct for the fools, but they chose not to view air atoms repelling one another, as it doesn't help their cosmic evolutionary process. In fact, if all atoms formed by the big bang repelled one another, no stars could form. Their foolishness is as simple as this: they chose what their theory needed rather than the truth.

So, as they could not define gas pressure as gas atoms inter-repelling, they needed another theory to explain it. Fortunate for them, the kinetic theory of atoms was able to explain gas pressure. They decided that atoms are forever in motion, and thus they fly against the outer walls of the tire, keeping it inflated. The more air atoms that are forced into the tire, the greater the energy of their banging against the tire walls.

But, their problem is, doubling the air pressure does not double the heat, not even nearly. Yet they define heat as the doubling of atomic energy. There is no difference between their definition of air pressure and their definition of heat. Their definition of temperature is the energy from motion in a system. Their definition of air pressure is the energy from motion in a system. Uh, big problem there. In their definition of heat, doubling the number of atoms in a space should double the temperature / heat. But that's not what happens. Yet, they teach it as fact anyway.

Here is there other problem. They have all atoms attracting one another. They therefore start to view the formation of cosmic blobs. Yet, on the other hand, the atoms of these blobs were wild with heat, as they define heat, because they were so near the big bang. So, the atoms were bouncing more wildly off of one another back then than millions of years later. So why didn't the atoms bounce away into space rather than remain a blob together? Gravitons. The accumulated gravitons in the blob brought the bouncing atoms back to the blob as they flew away. But that's impossible, like putting the egg before the chicken.

In other words, the first two atoms in the blob bounced away from one another with more force than their inter-graviton attraction could bring them together again. How, then, did the first part of the blob form if not even two atoms could bond due to their great kinetic energy? Big problem there, but that's okay for the science fool, because he actually realizes he's fooling the people. He knows where his theories don't work, but he plays the fool at those junctions of his teaching. And he charms you with jargon you don't understand, while giving the appearance of being far superior to your intelligence. Everywhere in the world of the Godless is deception.

In his view, hydrogen and helium are the lightest atoms, which is false. He therefore claims that the graviton attraction in hydrogen and helium are the weakest of all the atoms. Yet he sees that the sun is virtually all hydrogen. In his theory of cosmic evolution, all the other types of atoms should have formed the original blobs first, for these other atoms attract one another stronger, he says. Yet, he sees that the sun retained all of its hydrogen. How does he get himself out of this problem?

For one, he sees every atom as a number of hydrogen atoms. Everything is made up of hydrogen atoms, says the fool. Oxygen atoms are 16 hydrogen atoms combined. Stupid! Ask him how the big bang could possibly produce every atomic particle identical. Stupid! His cosmos has nothing but hydrogen atoms. It's his atomic model, and therefore the big bang produced only hydrogen atoms. How may other explosions do you know of that produce all particles exactly the same size, exactly with the same nature? You cannot get more ridiculously stupid than this, unless you also claim that the big bang produced every electron exactly the same size, exactly the same nature. But you can get still more ridiculous by saying that the big bang made every electron with equal charge of every proton.

In his view, a proton is nothing more than a hydrogen atom. The oxygen atom is viewed as 16 protons clustered together. But wait, stupid. Protons are all of positive charge, and therefore repel one another. You can't have this. You can't have cosmic evolution of atoms if their very cores are particles in inter-repulsion. Ahh, yes you can, if you invent what they call the "strong nuclear force." What's that? Nobody knows, because it's invented. The strong nuclear force is in the protons, and causes them to hold together like a glue. Science can therefore invent whatever it needs at the problem junctions. It just adds some hocus-pocus jargon that is above your ability to fathom, and therefore against your desire to follow, and who are you to question the mighty scientist? Just believe and be a good student, or you'll get flunked.

So, they wrongly tell us, the hydrogen particle is the smallest and therefore the lightest atom. It has only one electron, such idiots. A proton attracts electrons by nature, and it only loads one electron??? What nonsense. The entire atomic model is a sham, especially as they have electrons orbiting protons, which is an impossibility. The evolutionists are completely bonkers, run amuck, they should be ruined by the courts. But, alas, they are supported by all Western governments; they are placed on pedestals as our wise men, or even the gods themselves. We can see by the names of cosmic things used by NASA and evolutionists that they love the ancient gods.

Perhaps I have this wrong, but my impression from reading physics textbooks was that the earliest view of the uranium atom had it with 238 protons and 238 electrons because uranium weighs 238 times as much as hydrogen (one proton and one electron). Uranium was discovered long before the neutron was, and I'm now reading that a hydrogen atom is assigned 92 protons and 146 neutrons, both types of particles said to weigh the same by some fat chance (forget it, it isn't correct). In any case (both cases are wrong), each proton can only attract one electron, in the view of the fool (he assigns each uranium atom with 92 electrons). This is why he teaches that a teensy-weeny electron has equal electromagnetic charge to that of a proton. But, fool, so what? If you put a million tiny magnets next to a large magnet, does the latter only attract one tiny magnet? By what logic should a proton be capable of attracting only one electron? How does it help that question to make the electron equal in charge to the proton? Isn't that hocus-pocus?

In reality, a proton will continue to attract electrons until the out-radiating negative charges of all electrons, in all/any direction, is equal to the out-radiation positive charge of the proton. At that point, as logic dictates, no further electrons can be attracted; the atom has become net-neutral in charge in all directions. The entire proton is covered with electrons all around. If only one half the proton could be covered, which is impossible, then the proton would attract electrons from its bare half, logically. Therefore, it is impossible for the proton to have only one electron. The proton is virtually bare in that picture, and will attract electrons from many directions yet. Evolutionists are devoid of common sense.

You can predict that the outer electrons on every atom are not in contact with one another. If this were untrue, atoms would be unable to bond. It's God's genius in forming atoms. It's about time we start giving the Creator credit for things. All electrons upon a proton are repelling one another. We start with envisioning the first layer of electrons. What do you think it will look like? is there any reason to view that layer suspended above the protonic surface? No. Logic dictates that the first layer is crashed upon the protonic surface, held tight against it, as a rock falls to the earth and stays there. This is so simple.

However, as each electron is held tight, they all repel one another upon the surface. It is predictable that they will not be in contact with one another, but will take up equa-distant positions from one another, i.e. with gaps between one another...unless the proton is sufficiently strong as to attract more electrons to fill in the gaps. That is the obvious reality of atoms.

Next, we go to the second layer of electrons. There is a question on whether they will be pulled into contact with the first layer, or, whether they will hover slightly above the first layer due to their inter-repulsion. It depends on the strength of the protonic force. Some protons are stronger than others. Logically, every different element (material) is made up of different protons; they are not all identical as per the view of the fool. It is not me who calls him a fool, but his own theories.

Next, we go to the third layer, and this is all I need to point out aside from the last layer. The third layer is repelled by both the first and second layers. If, therefore, the second layer hovers above the first, the third layer will hover further above the second than the second hovers above the first. In other words, at whatever layer the hovering begins, be it the second or the 200th, the density of hovering electrons will decrease with height above the protonic surface. It is no different than the decreasing density of air atoms above the planetary surface.

The last layer will be held to the protonic surface very lightly because the repulsion of all electron layers further down is virtually equal to the protonic attraction upon it. It is easy to rub electrons off the top layers of atoms, and harder to rub them off further down.

The gaps between hovering electrons allow two or more atoms to merge and bond. Can you see it? Can you see why they should bond once they are merged? Can you see that they will not bond until they are merged? This is a fantastic piece of discovery: atoms repel one another until merged. When merged, a second electromagnetic system kicks in: the proton of one atom attracts the electrons of the other atom...perfect, such genius on the Creator's part.

What do you suppose takes place in the region where atoms are merged? Go ahead, picture it. Let's call the captured electrons an atmosphere. As two atmospheres of identical atoms merge, their merged sections have twice the electron density as the remaining parts of the atmospheres. In that case, the merged electrons are closer to one another, and true science tells us that they will repel one another with greater force for that reason. To where will they repel one another? We have two choices: to other areas of the atmospheres; 2) away from the atom altogether. Both take place, of course.

But wait. Prior to merger, both atmospheres were fully loaded. No more electrons could be attracted, wherefore the density of electrons cannot be increased. If you threw a 200 electrons into any atmosphere, they would not be retained. Or, to put it more accurately, electrons would be shed from the surface of the atom until 200 float away. They won't be the 200 you tossed in, but 200 will float away because the proton can't hold them. The captured electrons will repel them away, and 200 will sail off, ejected.

Tossing or injecting electrons into an atomic atmosphere is exactly what's done when one atom is forced to merge with another. They will not merge for nothing; something needs to force atoms together. If there are 200 electrons in the merged sections of two atmospheres, 200 electrons will be ejected from the atom, an thus they will become free electrons = heat particles. This is the heat of the atomic bonding process. Science knows that heat is always produced when gas atoms come together in liquid form. Only they don't know what that heat formation looks like. I've just explained to you how it works. I may be missing something because the Creator may have other things happening, but what I've just said is the gist of the process, for it is exactly expected and logical.

In every pound of gas turned into a liquid over and over again, the very same amount of heat is released...because every type of atom always merges by the same depth. Something stops atoms from merging deeper, or more heat will be released if they could. Possibly, atoms merge until they hit the gapless parts of the electron layers. It must be true that when merger only begins to take place, the inter-attraction pulls the merger deeper, but only to the same point as the previous merger. Electrons are being shed throughout the merger process.

When two atoms unmerge, they re-collect their lost electrons from the air. It's known that the same amount of heat is collected, per pound of liquid, over and over again, when it's turned into a gas. This process, as explained, explains why gas formation from liquids always produces cold/refrigeration, for newly-formed gas atoms (evaporation) are absorbing heat particles in the air. Simple. Factual. I am not the evolutionary fool, and neither should you be.

Heat rises because electrons are repelled by gravity. The fool explains rising air by saying that hotter air is lighter, and thus a buoyancy effect causes hotter air to rise. But when he says this, he ignores his own kinetic theory of heat. In that theory, air atoms are racing in all directions, crashing into one another, faster and harder when the air is warmer. But this situation is not like a piece of wood or a balloon in water. Those latter things are in contact with water atoms, which contact lifts the wood or the balloon due to greater water pressure on its bottom side than the water pressure on its top side. That's true buoyancy...which does not apply in a gas because air atoms are not in contact with one another, not giving lift to one another.

In other words, in the kinetic theory of heat, there is no buoyancy principle at work, no reason that faster air atoms should rise above their slower neighbors. Period. If the only difference between warmer and colder air is the speed of the atoms, how does that cause the faster ones to rise. There is no explanation. The evolutionist has lied to you, and he knows enough about the true science to know he's lying to you.

What do you suppose causes hydrogen to go to the top of the room? The fool says it's because its lighter. But why should a hydrogen atom shoot to the top of the room just because gravity pulls it with less force? There is no explanation. The situation is not identical to the buoyancy in a liquid. The hydrogen atom is not in contact with air atoms that somehow give it lift to the top of the room. In his view, the hydrogen atom is simply racing about, crashing into other air atoms, and there is no explanation as to why the air atoms should bounce it to the top. It could just as well be bounced to the floor. So, you see, the evolutionist deceives you with what he knows is a fatal flaw, a lie.

Obviously, the hydrogen atom goes to the top of the room because it has more lift than oxygen or nitrogen atoms. But what gives it lift? What gives all air atoms lift? Why do air atoms get more lift in July than in January? That is, why does the atmosphere grow taller (higher) in July? Obviously, heat gives gas atoms lift. As free electrons rise toward outer space, they get in under air atoms, on their bottom sides, and push them up. Now you know the truth.

Why does the hydrogen atom get more lift? My only solution is: the hydrogen atom is the largest of all atoms. It figures, for the fools chose to make it the smallest. They are almost always wrong in their atomic models. Conversely, the uranium atom is the smallest atom, yet they say it's the largest. The larger the atom, the more lift it gets.

It is likely true that a volume of uranium gas (at equal pressures) weighs 238 times more than an identical volume of hydrogen, but this doesn't mean that their respective atoms weigh differently by that amount. In their view, they have the same number of atoms per volume of gas (what are the chances of that, and how possibly could that coincidence come about?), but assign uranium with 238 times as many particles. But the greater likeliness is that there are 238 times as many uranium atoms in a uranium volume as there are hydrogen atoms in the same volume.

The stupids know that, in a vacuum, a bowling ball falls at the same speed (or acceleration) as a balloon. He knows that a uranium cannon ball falls at the same speed as an iron cannon ball, even though uranium is heavier per equal volume of iron. Yet his theory demands that uranium should fall faster, for he says that gravity attracts the uranium atoms with more force. Weight is defined as the specific pull of gravity on an object. If it pulls with more force, it has more weight. Simple enough. But then why doesn't uranium fall faster? If a magnet pulls a metal ball stronger than another magnet pulls the same ball, the one with the stronger pull also has the faster pull. Hello? Why doesn't this law of physics apply to the fool's view of atoms? Because, he's a fool, willing to deceive even himself on behalf of his cosmic evolution. His atomic model begins with cosmic evolution, though he won't admit it.

If all objects of various weights fall at the same speed, then we learn two things: 1) gravity pulls on individual atoms rather than on the whole of an object; 2) gravity pulls all atoms with equal force i.e. every atom weighs the very same regardless of type. The latter point just sounds impossible, but I have figured out how it is correct. Every atom weighs the same, regardless of atomic size, mass, or material. In my view, mass is not identical to weight, as the fools have their system rigged. You need to break free from their error.

In 1) above, the point is that it doesn't matter how many atoms are in an object, all objects fall at the same speed because gravity pulls on each atom individually...pulling all atoms at the same speed because it pulls all atoms with the same force. To understand this, picture a fully-loaded atom without gravity in the picture. The proton has captured its maximum number of electrons. What happens if we now bring the atom close to a gravity source? Well, being a negatively-charged source, gravity blows some electrons from the outer layers of the atom. Simple. You can't get more simple, more logical.

Why does an object increase in weight when placing it closer to the gravity source? Because, gravity blows more electrons off, the closer we bring the atom to it. An atom with electrons blown off develops a net-positive charge toward gravity's negative charge, and so this is the true definition of atomic attraction to gravity. Gravity forms the positive charge in atoms that simultaneously allows its attraction. Nothing complicated.

Every atom, at the same distance from gravity, ends up weighing the same simply because gravity repels only it electrons that clung to the proton with less force than the gravity force at that distance. Obviously, if any electrons is deep enough in the atmosphere to be pulled by a protonic force greater than gravity can repel it away, that electron won't be blown off. The outer layer of electrons, on any atom after gravity has blown off the others, can be viewed as attracted to the proton by a force equal to gravity. What's the problem? I see none.

The expectation is that, after gravity has blown off all electrons possible, on any type of atom whatsoever, the radiating positive charge toward the gravity source is equal for all atoms. That is, every atom weighs the same.

Let me put it another way. As the outer layer of all gravity-blown atoms (at the same distance from gravity) is held to the proton with the same force, every atom has developed the same net-positive charge going out to whatever negative charge might attract it. It is a given that the net-positive charge at the outer layer of all gravity-blown atoms will be equal to the force of gravity, wherefore it may stand to reason that the net-positive charge radiating beyond the outer layer is equal for all atoms. Every atom will therefore weigh the same.

Gravity force doesn't continue forever into space. Gravity can only act to a maximum distance. Let's go back to the fully-loaded atom outside the realm of gravity. It has naturally developed a total negative charge radiating outward equal to the positive charge radiating from the proton. It is therefore net-neutral. I'm not saying that the positive charge no longer exists beyond the outer layer; but that it's perfectly countered by the negative charge of all electrons combined. The positive charge attracts the gravity source at all times, but, simultaneously, the negative charge repels gravity. There is therefore zero net gravity attraction on the atom. If such an atom were distant enough from gravity that the latter could not blow away the top layer, the atom will remain net-neutral toward gravity. Zero weight.

So, the specific weight of an atom depends wholly on distance from the gravity source, and gravity provides the situation that makes all atoms weigh the same at the same distance from gravity. The moronic theory has the atom never-changing when brought closer to gravity; the weight increase in that theory is wholly credited to the inverse-square law of gravitational attraction. The inverse-square law says that gravity force quadruples upon an object when it's brought twice as close to gravity, but this is the very law that applies to electromagnetic force, which is the force I define gravity with. To put it another way, what I'm describing here on the reason for atomic weight is exactly dictated by the inverse-square law of electromagnetism. Regardless of atomic type, bringing all atoms twice as close to a gravity source causes four times as much repulsion on the atoms' captured electrons, predicting that all atoms will still weigh the same at that new location, and that all will weigh four times as much. This is complicated, however, to prove.

The government people who permit the scientists to teach our children that protons always capture electrons in orbits ought to be thrown in jail. No-more obvious falsehood can there be. This alone exposes the loony-bin approach of modern atomic physics. Did anyone ever ask why this theory is taught as fact? Do we simply accept our scientists as having no agenda but to get at the truth of matters? Surely, there is something sinister behind orbiting electrons. If a proton attracts a negative particle, by what stretch of the imagination should we conclude that it always goes into a super-fast orbit? First of all, orbits must be slow, or the orbiting item will go out of orbit. Secondly, this is the theory that allows the loony-bins to claim that materials are mostly space, the space around an atom due to the incredibly-low number of orbiting electrons in its possession. Are they nuts? Yes, indeed they are.

The orbiting electron nails my contention that the evolutionist is behind the modern atomic model. The orbiting electron is fast motion, playing to the kineticism still in existence from the big bang. What puts electrons into fast motion? The big bang. These goons not only ignore the law that atoms should come to a stop after a few collisions with one another, but they have devised a way to keep electrons from coming to a stop. They always go into orbit, retaining their energy. And while in orbit, they catch photons and release them, which is their definition of all reflected light. They are mad, absolutely mad.

And where did the photon particles come from, as they are not parts of atoms? They came from the big bang, of course, and they always fly about at 186,000 miles per second. Is there a word that is worse than "lunatic"; that word belongs to evolutionists. When the photon strikes an orbiting electron at that speed, it fails to knock the electron out of orbit, can you believe this nonsense, in our schools?

Did you ever hear them say that the big bang occurred at a pin-point ever-so-small? Can you allow yourself to believe that all the material in the universe was crowded into one pin-point of space? How did it all get there? How could it become so packed at that one spot? Is this not nonsense from the very start of the theory? When the explosion takes place, all material flies away from this place of origin, and moves away from the rest. That's right, as the material begins to fill more space, all the particles move away from one another. It is highly unlikely that particles will screech through space parallel to one another if they all originated at a pin-point. Instead, they will move out at angles to one another, unable to make contact therefore.

The weeny little attraction forces at atoms, which are imagined by the creators of this theory, are incapable of overcoming the fast speeds of these screeching atoms. How, then, can the atoms come together to form suns? It's the best they can do, to say that atoms attract one another, but even then they have a massive problem of the speed of atoms. They will tell us that gas atoms travel at mere hundreds of miles per hour. How did they slow down so much since the big bang? How can they say that atomic energy cannot be destroyed on the one hand, as an argument to keep atoms going at the same speed on average, and then claim that atoms have slowed down to mere hundreds of miles per hour?

They then claim that atoms in your tire are going too fast to attract one another, which is there explanation as to why the tire remains inflated, for if atoms bonded with one another in the tire, they would turn to liquid, and you tire would cease to have air pressure. But if mere hundreds of mph is sufficient to keep attracting atoms from merging, how did they merge together to form stars when they were screeching through space at far-faster velocities? Hum?

In their minds, stars formed many millions of years after the big bang. By that time, the particles of the bang would have been many miles apart. Protons would not have been able to attract electrons from that distance, and even if atoms did form somehow, they wouldn't be able to attract one another from that distance, and especially not under the further condition of they were still screeching through space, still further and further apart. The very start of their very own theory destroys any possibility for using it to put together a model for cosmic evolution.

Did our government people not question these criminals before allowing them to put these ideas into the minds of our children, and into our own minds? Is it not criminal to teach such things in the schools? Why is there no law against such ideas? Why are schools not held accountable for the things they teach the students? Make a law: thou shalt not teach anything that is too wild to be true. Scientific quacks have destroyed the social fabric of society, by convincing many that evolution is feasible, that there is no God, therefore. This is the crux of their evolutionary deception, and, believe you me, they will go to the prison of God.

If photons can strike electrons, then electrons can strike protons. Every point of contact would slow the electron, but with electrons all moving at different velocities, it alone destroys the light-related theories based on the orbiting electron. The quack says that photons are able to knock electrons into higher orbits, and that electrons fly in lower orbits when releasing a photon. Never do photons knock the electron out of orbit. If I recall correctly, the height of the orbit defines the color of light from the photon released. The electron goes up and down in orbit, with calibrated, complicated explanations, all fashioned as fine-sounding garbage in efforts to retain the high ground in the school texts, and no one in government kicks the bums out. This is an example of the political power of the anti-Christs in these final generations.

They have wormed themselves into governments too, to protect their new society of "reason." I feel sure that God has permitted this situation, to show the extremes that they will go to keep God dead in the schools and in government. This attitude will be the evidence against them at God's court. They don't stand a chance.

Anyone can understand that the striking of a photon against an orbiting electron can either slow the orbit or speed it up. It just depends on what directions the two are flying at the point of contact. These points of contact are completely random; there is no law demanding that photons always hit the electron from its back side to speed it up, which is what would knock it into a higher orbit because, the faster the electron orbit, the higher the orbit, for greater speed forces an electron to spiral away from the proton's hold. But if a photon can knock the electron around, what about the head of a hammer to the atoms of a nail? How possibly do electrons survive such a thing while retaining orbits? Hum? Only a quack knows the answer. Nobody else would give one.

What do you think makes contact, in the atomic world, when a hammer strikes a nail? In the quack's view, either the protons strike the protons, or the protons strike the electrons, or the electrons strike the electrons. In any of the three possibilities, the orbits will be ruined, will they not? Hello? What happens to a ruined orbit? No problem, the protons just get new orbiting electrons. The quack has it made because he can appeal to any fancy he so desires, and the government won't kick him into prison for corrupting the people. He laughs all the way to Hell.

It is this concept of protons always attracting electrons into orbit that is the fatal evidence against the quack. But even NASA, which knows best on the intricacies involved in putting an object into orbit, doesn't complain on our behalf. They don't come out to say that it's impossible for random-flying particles to continually enter orbits around a proton, and impossible for electrons to zip around the proton as fast as physicists imagine. "You may wonder how fast the electrons are whizzing around in the atoms around you. A good example (and the most simple to calculate) is the hydrogen atom which is in all our water. A calculation shows that the electron is traveling at about 2,200 kilometers per second." How many times per second does the electron orbit the proton at that speed? Only a quack wants to know, because it's just not happening. But there you have it in print, stated as a fact. How did we go from theory to fact in just one generation? The liars willing to lie for the cause of murdering God. We are there. We are ripe for God's appearance to say, "here I am."

Now you know why the quack imagines the electron so small, as compared to the proton, because higher speed, which is their big-bang god, can be claimed for the electron if its small enough. High speed kills the orbit, unless the electron can be made very small so that believers in the theory start to turn up. Probably, they did not make the electron small enough to justify the speed we see above, but for added measure, the quacks claim that the electron has a super attraction force of its own, to the proton, which helps to keep it in orbit at whizzing velocity. That is, the quacks say that the tiny electron has as much attraction force as the proton.

Now you know why they assign the electron super attraction to the proton. But they receive a problem for this twist. It means also that electrons repel one another with super force. If electrons repel one another with as great a force as the proton attracts an electron, how do two or more electrons orbiting the same proton manage to stay on the proton? As these electrons come nearer to one another in the their respective orbits, they increase wildly in their inter-repulsion. And their inter-repulsion is ever changing in force levels throughout each orbit, depending on their distance from one another, having the effect of wobbling both orbits into chaos and oblivion. We expect the destruction of the orbits, but the quack won't go there. He will demand that no such destruction takes place, and he will come up with his excuses. That's how the government has allowed him to operate, a dreamer, a buffoon in a sacred, white robe. He has become the holy bum.

You can't tell me that an electron orbiting one proton is the same as an electron orbiting two, three, or 238 protons in a protonic cluster. We cannot have the electron orbiting at the same speed both around one proton and around 238 protons. If there could even be an orbit around one, the prediction is that the electron will spiral fast to a crash upon a cluster of 238 protons. How does the bum manage to escape the laws of physics in his atomic model? Easy. He literally claims that the laws of physics don't apply to atoms. How convenient. It's his own salvation. His god is to make up laws that don't exist. It's all that satan has to play with.

Some scientists are admitting today that the electron is "not really in orbit." One imagines from this that some scientists are only half murdering the quacks of old, for the electrons are assumed to be spinning around the protons, which, though not the same as literal orbiting, still retains a look like that of the quacks of old. Why not just kill them completely and start with a completely new view?

Electrons are trapped by attraction, and, while hovering over the proton, can easily move around over the protonic surface. There is no rule that they must spin, however, though spins are predictable at times, depending on how the atoms are struck. In my view, electrons are logically stationary over protons until the atoms are struck by an object. A hammer to a nail could cause electrons to spin in any random direction, but the most-common type of electron motion is predicted to be chaos. Some of the electrons, in the chaos, will be ejected as frictional heat. Anyone who says that electrons are spinning are serving to keep the quacks half alive, and show that they fear the quacks. Realizing the impossibility, we now have comments like this:

The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the manner of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves. Thus the lowest possible energy an electron can take is similar to the fundamental frequency of a wave on a string.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

Nobody can understand this. It is nonsense because someone is trying to keep the quack of old alive. They are trying to get away from the orbit, but somehow trying to save face too. How does "exists as standing waves" help us to understand that the situation is close to the orbit? Why doesn't the statement simply ridicule the orbital view as nonsense? The article above is way above your head because it's filled with nonsense. You can't make sense of it not because you're not intelligent enough, but because there is no intelligence involved. It's a smoke screen of incomprehensible jargon seeking to keep the Godless quacks alive.

The electron is now a standing wave, or behaves as a standing wave. What nonsense. Why can't the electron just be a particle trapped by the proton? Because, the quack demands that one proton has only one electrons, and if we begin to view things as they are to be expected, in simple fashion, we would say that the proton can attract many more than one electron, and that they would be attracted as a magnet attracts iron filings. The stupids are forbidden to take that view. The quacks have them handcuffed. The government allows them to punish us if we deviate from their laws. They are in bed together, the Western nations with the God killers. That's the problem with society. That's the mutation of society evolving a sick beast from normalcy. The electron is not a standing wave, bank on it.

The article above says both that electrons do not orbit, and that they do. The article says that electrons are not fully particles, but part waves, part particles. No one can grasp this nonsense. It derives from the supporters of Einstein, the inventor of the photon particle. The quacks retained the photon particle for their model, but turned into a wave too, and this impossible concept was assigned to the electron too. They can explain anything because their explanations are purely from imaginative forces. They can betray the laws of physics and still retain respectability because the governments allow them to operate in this way.

"Thus, despite the popular analogy to planets revolving around the Sun, electrons cannot be described simply as solid particles." There you have it. They left the realm of reason, because reason destroyed their orbiting-electron theory, and turned the electron into a wave, and meanwhile making the wave complicated for to hide the impossibilities in their evolved views.

Why does an electron need be a wave? can we ask what causes this wave? In the land of reason, only a particle can cause a wave. A wave must be defined as energy transferring particle-to-particle. A sound wave transfers atom-to-atom, for example. If they say that the photon particle causes the electron wave, they are out of luck because they now view the photon as a wave too. It's as though they wish to have it both ways so that, when the one disproves the other, they cling to the other.

A light wave transfers electron-to-electron, but Einstein killed the view that light is a wave, and turned light into the photon particle. When evidence popped up later that light was a wave, the stupids retained the super-fast photon (impossible speed) but turned it into an incomprehensible wave that behaves like a particle. The reality is that light is a longitudinal wave caused by the emission of electrons in the sun, or in the filament of a light bulb. Light waves are formed by the emission of electron particles, period. There is nothing unreasonable about this view. The evidence is right there in the solar wind, which they have known about since the days of Apollo moon missions, yet to this day they have refused to admit that the solar wind is the light-wave medium (or ether) that Einstein said was impossible. If you can't correct your mistakes, get the hell out of the schools. Stop twisted minds with twisted fantasies.

They tell us that the solar wind consists of electrons sailing from the sun, which is evidence that electrons are emitted by the sun. Hello? We have both an electron ether, and electrons emitted into the ether. Isn't that the light wave, stupids? What possesses them that they refuse the obvious? One of the arguments against the ether, used by Einstein himself if I recall correctly, is that its weight is not found in experimentation or in reasoning. In that case, they have no choice but to view the ether as weightless. Yet they objected to that idea because they insisted that electrons have mass, and because they defined all mass as having weight. They refused to go in the right direction, in other words.

Had they gone in the right direction, they would have started with a weightless ether, whether or not they could explain it at the time. They would have created the theory that some form of particle in space has no weight, meaning that it's repelled by gravity. But, ouch, that would destroy a basis by which they explained cosmic evolution from the big bang. And that was their error that lead to other errors. Had they started with a weightless particle to define the ether, they would have celebrated the discovery of the solar wind, the ether they had predicted. They would then have proclaimed that electrons are repelled by solar gravity, and from this they would have recognized that gravity is the electric force of electrons. Electrons repelling electrons created the weightless ether through which light transmits almost-instantly as a wave, no super-fast photon particle needed whatsoever.

We can forgive Einstein for being wrong back in those old days, but we cannot excuse the modern fink who continues to pass off his error in a mutated form. Modern times has more than the clear evidence of the electron ether. But it does not have the heart nor the desire to confess that it's entire atomic model is a sick fantasy. Anyone who dares say "ether" is considered a fool right off the bat, which is why we can suspect that the particulars behind the ether wrecks their big-bang model. Instead of the ether, they prefer a super-fast, ghostly wave that travels in straight lines like a bullet.

It was the photon that allowed them to grow the universe into a size that is not true at all. They first calculate how long ago the big bang was, and of course they can choose any number they so please, and then they multiple that age by 186,000 mps to find the expected size of the ever-expanding universe at this time. The photon thus allows them to have a gigantic universe, which makes it possible for them to claim that exploded stars in the one galaxy are other galaxies far off. There is no sound evidence, in my opinion, to prove that what they call galaxies are not merely exploded stars within our own galaxy, and thus there is no evidence that there is more than one galaxy. That is, the one galaxy is the entire universe that we can see with telescopes.

The reason that stars move away from one another is, not the lasting effect of the big bang, but because stars shoot electrons at one another. The electron ether of one star contacts the ether of the other stars, and this causes stars to move apart. Two men on two rafts shooting water from hoses at one another, where the streams of both hoses collide, will move away from one another. Simple. It's simple and acts as the alternative explanation for the expanding of the universe, which is a potential reason that early evolutionists rejected the concept of stars producing ethers.

A longitudinal wave goes in a straight line instead of spreading out as does a sound or water wave. Shadows act as good evidence that light waves do not spread out. Sound will curve around a rock; light will not. Therefore, I've got to think that the emission of electrons into the solar wind form a straight-going wave, and I do have an explanation as to why it doesn't spread out.

If a magnet is passed slowly past a metal ball, the ball will roll. If the magnet passes very fast past the same ball, the magnet won't move. The total level of attraction or repulsion on an item is thus the specific force of the electromagnetic object in combination with the time that it acts on the item. If the time is a small fraction of a second, the attraction/repulsion is minimized to almost zero.

So, when the atoms of a hammer to a nail collide, the vibration of the contacted atoms goes out in jolts toward air atoms in the air. This is the sound wave through air, defined as air atoms jolting forward a small distance toward other air atoms. As they jolt, they pass atoms to their sides, and repel them toward other atoms. It is this affect on atoms, to the sides, that causes the wave to spread out in all directions as well as straight ahead. It's not hard to grasp.

My theory is that the speed of an emitting electron from the sun or light bulb, or of jolting electrons further ahead, is so fast that electrons to the sides are not affected, at least not much, so that the wave is almost-wholly forward. Any waves to the sides may be so slight as to cause some invisible light, but we won't see this as light passed by a rock.

Plus, to this situation may play the fact that electrons in the ether are not attracted by gravity, whereas air and water atoms are. Gravity holds air atoms tightly down toward itself so that there is some resistance to any atom moving / jolting between air atoms. It is likely that, the greater the gravity force upon atoms, the slower the wave. In other words, gravity upon a wave medium is what may slow down a wave, but where there is no gravity effect on the medium, the speed of the wave is more free.

If air atoms were free from gravity, that particular resistance would not exist. In fact, apart from gravity, air atoms would spread apart and wander into space. That is the condition of free electrons that make up the solar wind.

When a wave comes through, it's nothing strange or phantom-like or wave-particle stupid; it's the jolt of electrons. Can you imagine the jolt of an electron? It's not hard or weird; it's reasonable, it's normal. There is jolt after jolt, each causing another in a straight line all the way from the sun to the earth and beyond. It's not a single wave-particle flying through space. It's a domino effect, electron jolt after electron jolt.

When a wave finally strikes an object on the earth, it sends a jolt into the atmosphere (captured electrons) of a single atom in the object, and the atmosphere is thus excited...so that captured electrons move about, jolting outward toward the air. This forms reflected light. If the electron jolts from the object's atoms are dispersed and therefore weak enough, the object looks black to our eyes (it may not look black to the eyes of other creatures).

I add to these atomic discussions near the end of the first update in August, two updates from now.

The Monster Makers are the Monsters

Trump surprised both me and the world on how friendly he was with Putin. I tend to agree with his attitude toward Putin, and toward his own CIA. This was a bad day for the CIA. Trump betrayed it. Amazing. It's a good sign. He made it clear that he does not trust those who call Putin a thug and a tyrant. He wants to see for himself what Putin is made of. It is even possible that Trump and Putin mat work together to unveil the crimes of the American deep state. Trump openly attacked, with Putin standing beside him, the DNC for not giving up its server to the FBI. Trump is suspicious that Guccifer was a con job, in other words, and this may lead to some revelations if push comes to shove.

The real tyrants and thugs are the Democrats and the deep state. In the CIA and the American military. There you have the world's number one murderers by far. For those entities to accuse Putin is hypocritical.

Pravda interfered in the U.S. election, by writing pro-Trump articles. But I know of no reliable proof that Putin interfered. I certainly don't believe Rosenstein's accusation, or Mueller's. Do you? I'm sure that thing originates in "evidence" from the CIA and/or the FBI. Do you trust either?

Trump's day with Putin caused many at Fox news to cease sucking Trump's tit. That's a good thing too. My wish is that Trump would now insist on proof from the DNC that Guccifer stole its files. Let's get right to the bottom of this scam. The more that even Republicans attack Trump on this issue, the more that he might be moved to act in ways he's failed to act thus far on the deep-state hoaxes. If the worst Mueller has is that some Russian spies partook in the election process to the point that it altered virtually nothing in the way of votes, then Rosenstein and Mueller are the biggest stinkers in this entire affair. This is hardly treason on Trump's part, merely to deny the interference for the time being until proper evidence is presented. Trump is giving Putin the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty. It's the right way to do it. Why should Trump trust the Mueller team on this accusation, and just look at how Rosenstein timed his announcement on the interference indictment (late last week).

The longer that the president refuses to give in to the Putin-despising Republicans, the more he'll want to find the proof that Guccifer was not behind the "hack." This would take a direct order from the DoJ for to get the FBI to demand the DNC server's records on the "hack" (the currently-standing evidence is that it was not a hack, but a download from the inside). Did Putin kill a reporter that was against him? I don't know? Did the DNC kill Seth Rich? Probably. Did Obama / Hillary kill Scalia and Brietbart? Probably. Are there no high-level villains inside the United States that the CIA should be concerned only for villains in Russia? When they point the finger at Putin, they must point ten back at themselves.

The worst thing about this for the CIA is that it makes Putin look a lot better inside Russia for getting Trump more on his side, for the CIA's goal is to get the Russian people to topple Putin, which is, of course, interference in Russian elections. Yup. Hypocrisy.

Trump's mistake is that he didn't expose the Mueller team, the DNC, and similar others earlier. Oops. It would have been very handy at this time.

I frankly would like to see the super-powers getting along with sincere admiration for one another to the point that all cold-war animosities evaporate forever. That's a far-better world that the one I grew up in. The post-Soviet Russian leaders can be given a chance at getting along with the West. Reduce NATO interference on the Russian border, allow Russia to sell gas freely to Europe with Europe's will, and Putin could be convinced to give the Crimea back to the Ukraine, to distance itself from anti-Israeli powers, etc. But the ugly Americans are intent on provoking the Russians to the very brink of war. We saw this recently with the faked chemical-weapons attacks in Syria. The CIA wants to attack the Russians in Syria. Trump has not bent to this will, however, at least not yet. With the CIA demon on one shoulder, speaking into his ear, he teeters, probably, between the CIA will, and the path of peace. Which do you think is the better choice.

Trump cannot deal with Russia as he dealt with Korea. You can threaten Korea and get away with it, but you can't do that seriously with Russia. Are they nuts? Apparently, they are.

Trump can now argue that, due to the importance of his decision on how to proceed with Russia foreign policy, he needs to know the bare facts on the DNC server. he can also demand the evidence on the indictment of the 12 Russians, and give it to his lawyers to look over. Trump needs to do these type of things because those who are against him are seeking to set the presidential agenda on behalf of their own agendas in foreign policy. This president needs to crucify the deep state that wishes to rule unelected. I have said many times that this president has great opportunities at this time to perform this task, but has, thus far, blown it.

Step one: expose Rosenstein, replace him with a proper Republican bent on punishing the deep state. Step two: declassify documents, let them out to the public domain, and thereby jail the Hillary-circle criminals (they interfered in the election with the dossier) to send the proper message that the president will not tolerate high-level crimes. Watch the rats scurry, and get them into thick waters before they can do further harm. Step three: admit that Wray was a mistake, and replace him with someone intent on cleaning swamp. It's all what the president promised. He has the ticket from his voters to do these things. Let the left scream, lunatics that they are, let them scream while ignoring them.

I've got to hand it to Trump. On the weekend, he refused to take a question from CNN before the whole world watching. He said he won't take questions from CNN. Excellent, most excellent. This is how to treat the leftist media. Let them scream, and ignore them until they are fully mad as repayment for their hypocrisies, their false accusations, their trouble making, their demonism. Here's a video of Trump with Putin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvdD0gkMPA8

In the 10th minute of the video above, Hannity, unashamed, says he likes Trump's suggestion to Germany not to buy Russian fuel, especially, as Hannity goes on to say, because the United States can sell it to Germany instead and thus cripple both the Russian economy and Putin. Is Hannity nuts? You see, this is the brunt of the animosity against Russia, the reason to demonize Putin, to make the Russian economy collapse. Is that really the right way forward? Is not America the great satan for trying to do such a thing to an entire nation? You can see the glee in Hannity's face. Is he nuts? I guess he is. But, maybe, Trump will decide not to go that route. That's why Republican hawks are angry with him now, because he's not chugging forward, at least not on this day, on the destroy-Russia track.

In the 2nd minute of the Ingraham video below, Trump shows openly that he does not have full confidence in his National Intelligence chief, Dan Coats. This comes as Pompeo, the CIA director not many months ago, is now the 2nd in command of the American Russian policy. Everyone wants to hear what Pompeo has to say about Trump's "treason," but, so far, I've seen nothing. Did Trump do his own Russian policy at odds with that of Pompeo? If he did, I give Trump a high five. He finally did something right. And he's going to pay for it. So be it. In this video, Ingraham takes the word of U.S. Intelligence as trustworthy; she has a lot to learn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldW_GA02kQ4

What do we think caused Trump to denounce Dan Coats publicly in Finland? Does Trump have a good reason (information) for doubting Coats on his Russian-interference accusation? Where did he get that information? I'd love to see it? Think about it: the anti-Russians, and the Democrats, have had many months in which to bring out the evidence of Russian interference, and they would both love to cripple Trump. So, where is that evidence? Why isn't it public if it's so good? On Wednesday, the following came out:

President-elect Donald Trump, two weeks before taking the oath of office in January 2017, was shown highly classified intelligence claiming Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered Russian interference efforts into the 2016 presidential election, according to a report.

The data was backed up by emails and texts from Russian military officers and a top-secret source close to Putin, who told the CIA how the Kremlin decided to start its hacking and disinformation efforts against U.S. targets, the New York Times reported.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/19/trump-was-briefed-about-putins-meddling-role-2-weeks-before-taking-office-report.html

Okay, so we need to trust the CIA on this. Do we? Let this evidence come out so that Putin can defend himself. What's the CIA so afraid of? Let's see the evidence if it's good enough to show the president? If it is good enough, why did he say in Finland that he's not very excited about Coats' evidence on the same issue? Big problem there. Trump changed that tune only because people on his team compelled him. It was Obama's CIA, under the anti-Trump Brennan, that is involved here. The same article: "Trump was 'grudgingly convinced' by the assessment, according to the Times, which spoke with several other people who attended the intelligence briefing...The meeting occurred Jan. 6, 2017, at Trump Tower in New York City, and Trump was briefed by a number of officials, including now-fired FBI Director James Comey and John Brennan, who was then director of the CIA." "Grudgingly convinced" is the way his enemies would phrase it. I would guess that, "not very convinced," is the more-correct phrase. "Grudgingly" carries the idea of convinced, but not happy about it, or rebellious.

Look: "The officials told Trump of Putin’s role in the Kremlin’s efforts to hack U.S. political targets such as the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and how officers of the Russian intelligence agency plotted with groups like WikiLeaks to publicize the stolen emails." If Trump had done, from the start, what he should have, this statement would have been unusable. He should have discovered who really took the DNC emails. But the stupid president thought best to leave that issue alone. He let corruption be, and now this corruption is coming round to bite his arse, and keeping him from operating freely in the meantime. Good, he deserves it. Trump can appeal to WikiLeaks for the evidence against the DNC. Why doesn't this donkey of a president do it? Why so stubborn? Perhaps he will feel he has no other choice. Let's wait and see.

The good news is that Trump has not accepted the claim that Russia stole the DNC emails. In Finland, he clearly revealed that he opposes that idea. If he continues to believe it, and if he doesn't flip-flop on that item too, and if the enemy pushes him on this issue, he just might get something done to expose the real thief of the emails. He has challenged Intelligence to get the DNC server to discover who the real culprit was. But he's very late now, for the enemy has had plenty of time to monkey with at least some of the evidence in the server. Let this be an example to him: leave corruption alone to survive, and it will come round to you.

The leftist media is now trying to paint Trump as the enemy of Intelligence. Now is the time for Trump to expose Intelligence. Go for it, bumbler. Never mind the flip-flop; you're making yourself look unreliable. We'd love to see Intelligence ruined as the FBI has been. Christians of the future need it. Intelligence is our number-one enemy. Intelligence is the rat's arse, exactly what Obama was fornicating with. It would be a great thing to expose Obama's partnership with his Intelligence teams, for he is an anti-Christ.

I am so ashamed of Trump for his poor performance on this fight to date. He seems to be a pathological idiot. Order the documents that prove corruption, you bumbling idiot. What is wrong with you? Ask Pompeo to get you the CIA documents that prove corruption, and if he does not, get rid of him. Ask Rosenstein to get you the documents, and if he does not, get rid of him. Your voters feel let down, bumbler. I feel like swearing. If you just keep spinning your wheels and looking back, the mud will only fly into your face. Start the war, and go forward. Take a leap and let your base support you. Shed the pro-Intelligence actors on your team; they are your nightmare, can't you understand this simple thing? Get anti-Intelligent people on your team, and fight a good fight. Just don't go down raising the white flag. If you lose fighting a good fight, so be it, but do damage to the government mobsters. Others will continue the fight.

Forget nations elsewhere; clean up your own nation. Remove the burden of world policy from your shoulder, and destroy the leaders of American Intelligence. A poll by Axios taken this week found that 79 percent of Republicans approved of the Trump-Putin meet. So why did Trump abandon the 79 percent for the few hawks on his team who demanded that he repent of his attack on Intelligence? Why did Trump become the wet sock hanging himself on a line on a cold, damp night? It was unnecessary.

Wikipedia: "Coats pressed President Barack Obama to punish Russia harshly for its March 2014 annexation of Crimea. For this stance, the Russian government banned Coats and several other U.S. lawmakers from traveling to Russia". There you have the full gravity of Trump's public denouncement of Coats. Trump is the one who put Coats (a Republican) at the job previously held by the Obamaite, James Clapper. Has Coats dug up any dirt on Clapper or Obama? Not that I've heard. Did Trump make another mistake in giving Coats this job? The president has been such a failure thus far. But he can turn it around, if somehow he sheds his demons.

When the deep state decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, with Mueller chosen by Bush as the FBI chief just days before 9-11, Bush almost made Coats the boss in the Middle-East wars: "In 2001, Coats was reportedly one of George W. Bush’s top choices to be Secretary of Defense, a job eventually given to Donald Rumsfeld who had previously held the post under President Gerald Ford" (Wikipedia). Something to keep in mind as the current drama continues to unfold. Trump likes to learn the hard way. He picks all the wrong people, who come to bite his legs at every step. He listens to the wrong people when choosing the leaders of his administration.

Putin still shows, as he's been showing for years, that he wants an amicable relationship with the West. You can decide whether this is just his insincere game, but, the point is, there is no sign that he wants to be aloof from the West in sheer hatred and disgust. I imagine that he does resent the West's attitude toward himself, but he generally stays on the high road in reaction. He is the underdog in a war against the United States, and so I rule out the scenario where Putin is faking friendship because he wants to attack the entire West. That seems ludicrous, but the West would rather push that scenario than take Putin's offer for a peaceful and amicable relationship. In my assessment, Putin only wants to become a respected part of the "West." There is no threat unless CIA (etc.) belligerence makes one by continued provocations and Middle-East intrusions.

There was a time when the American military fooled me into believing that it was the angel of security because it protected against a Russian python intent on strangling the West, but this no longer holds me. Thanks to 9-11, I now see the West as the python, and the hatred toward Putin at this time is due purely to his entering the Middle-East war, and the related Ukraine issues. The Western python would have hated Putin even if Russia did not use Iran and Korea as part of its protective / reactionary measures against the West. One after Putin may become very evil toward the West, but for now, I see no threat with a cool, collected Putin. He's holding the fort against the West, that is all, and spying on the American military and NATO, of course, what do we expect?

For me, there is a greater likeliness that the anti-Christ will come in relation to a Democrat White House that despises Israel. It is impossible for me to know whether Putin will still be the Russian leader, or even alive, at that time. There is nothing happening on a fast track that I can see, in the Middle-East, to show that Putin is ready to invade Israel through the use of any direct or indirect group(s). Until such a scenario develops, I won't even consider Putin as part of the anti-Christ system. He even speaks well of religious freedom, which is not how I envision the anti-Christ.

Did Republican opposition against Trump cause him to alter his attitude? Not on the first day, but, on the second day, yes. See his interview with Hannity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfS2n21Cnpo

It seems that Trump's attitude toward Putin was not to insult him before talks could begin, because he wants to give talks a chance at clearing up the problems that the West has with Russia. Basically, he's trying give-and-take, and he is treating Putin far better than he treats some Western leaders when he's with them on a public world stage. This is what Intelligence was afraid of since before Trump entered the White House. It's playing out just as they had not hoped it would. I like the schism between them. I hope it develops into something good for the people. I hope the schism widens until Trump becomes helpful, like one turning on Intelligence as the greatest enemy of the United States.

It seems that all of the negative things that Trump said against Putin dissipated overnight. It seems that he spoke the negative things previously due to pressure from Intelligence people.

But, on Tuesday, Trump did a flip-flop and sided with Intelligence again, and thereby betrayed Putin, saying that Russia did meddle in the elections, as Dan Coats claimed. It shows that he lies to retain popularity and/or to avoid waves. But we can view this as his lie to get Intelligence monkeys and other types of rude-imentary apes off his back. We can bank on Trump disliking anti-Russian Intelligence, but playing along with it. He's scared, apparently, for there are multiple things to be afraid of.

Trump needs a two-week vacation. He works too much, and does the things that are not as important as dealing with you-know-what. Just imagine if the CIA has been making up dirt on Russia by sly and crafty means, by using the CIA agencies or affiliates to do a thing to be blamed on Russia. Isn't that the most-important thing to deal with, to send those imposters to 50-year prison sentences, and to make sure it never happens again? Not only does Trump not have much heart for Intelligence leaders, but he dislikes Coats, according to some reliable news this week. This issue could dove-tail with the theft and murder of Seth Rich, or is that merely in my dreams?

The anti-Russians, and Coats himself, are attacking Trump this week for not discussing, with Intelligence, his talks with Putin...because Intelligence wants to govern the outcome of the talks. Who really is the nation's leader??? It's time to swipe Intelligence in the face, asking, who made the dog the decision maker? Intelligence is made of snooping dogs. No professional spy can ever be a respectable human being. His spying on others turns him into a low-class slime. These organizations possess the worst of all people to run the country with behind-the-scenes tactics. The CIA does not protect America from Russia, but causes a severe division between the two countries while stealing American money to topple Russia. There has never been a real threat of an attack from post-Soviet Russia, and, probably, the Soviets were not serious about an attack either. The CIA has therefore been an unnecessary waste, for starters, but it also births corrupt schemes.

The president keeps saying that nuclear power is the biggest threat today. Not if Intelligence stops barking at Russia. He's got to slap his dogs across the face, and tell them to shut up when they urge him to re-start the cold war. Most the entire country (ignoring the 30-40% of Dems who oppose his every move) will side with Trump if its on the issue of re-starting the cold war, where he opposes it. It is good that he's come out to say that he opposes that way forward. I'm leaning on taking him as one who truly wants world peace. Tucker shares my sentiments on this:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/17/trump-says-misspoke-on-russian-meddling-during-press-conference-accepts-us-intel-findings.html

In short, instead of fighting for what he believes in, lip-service capitulation to the CIA. But as long as it's lip service only, it's better than a whole-hearted partnership. He's realizing that Republican hawks are standing in his way. He either bows down to them, or he slowly removes them from his team. Yet, the problem still persists that the CIA and friends have trapped many Americans in a hate-Russia orgasm. They absolutely get off on hating Russia. It's obscene to watch it at this time. They will not allow Trump to behave open toward Putin, yet they celebrated an open attitude toward North Korea...because it involves weakening Russia by removing Korea's nuclear capability.

What about befriending Putin in order to take away the Russian nuclear threat? No way, totally unacceptable and obscene...because twisted demons are bent on toppling Russia. Bush's Middle-East invasion undoubtedly evolved this as a long-term task. Slowly, the West was about to rob all of Russia's trade partners all around her.

Trump was about to be in a position to demand from Dan Coats the EVIDENCE for Russian meddling, and that could have made Trump a hero for exposing Coats. Instead, Trump caved. That evidence is still required. No one takes Intelligence at their word anymore, yet the hawks are, at this time, talking as though Intelligence tells no lies. If Intelligence blames Assad for chemical weapons, they need not show the evidence to the hawks; the latter take it at its word. I see this situation as dangerous, and so does Trump. I think Trump had a glimpse of how bias Intelligence is, how bent on a cold-war scenario, and he apparently didn't like it. That's a good thing.

Coats claims that Russian interference is for the purpose of ruining American democracy. But Intelligence is what kills democracy, we are seeing this now in glaring lights. Intelligence doesn't spend its time spying on Russia, but on American politics for to control agendas.

Trump was absolutely correct for calling Intelligence out for never demanding to see the DNC server. What a lousy man this is to start like that, on a super track, and then cave the next day. He had the upper hand. He could have demanded that Coats get the DNC server if he really wants to prove that Russia violated the United States. It would have made Coats look like the imposter that he is. If he were not an imposter, he would have worked with Trump to acquire the DNC server months ago. He doesn't want to because it will reveal that Russia has nothing to do with the hack. Trump thus had the upper hand, the winning hand, and then folded with a whimper. He's now the slave of the hate-Russia hawks. He thinks he can't get re-elected again so long as he goes counter the hawks. Therefore, Armageddon, here it comes.

Lisa Page was interviewed twice in the last few days, and Republicans seem very happy about her attitude. We can assume that she gave them what they wanted to a degree, but it's doubtful a silver bullet was part of it. Surprise me.

FBI boss Wray came out this week to say that Mueller is not involved in a witch hunt, but is conducting a "professional investigation by what I've considered to a straight shooter." Spoken just like a Rosenstein, proving that Trump picked the wrong man for FBI boss. Wray also repeated Coats' statement that Russians are trying to divide Americans, which in fact is the job of the American deep state and of the Democrats. With Trump down on the ropes this week, Wray comes out to mock him, that's what this is. It is a very good thing that Wray spoke like this to reveal what he's made of. One can tell that he thinks that Mueller has evidence that Russia interfered with Trump in collusion. Trump helped the Russians interfere, that is. That's the main thing Mueller is there for, to connect Trump to the interference. Wray must be part of that wagonload of manure that is to be delivered at some opportune time.

The Russians meddled in the elections, is that right Mr. Wray? But the FBI did not?????? Such a joke, such a joke, is Mr. Wray. He now wants to become more important because he sees the tide turning toward the Mueller side. That's because Trump is letting it work out that way. Trump and his supporters are afraid to fire Mueller for the media backlash, which threatens to become the impeachment monster (Democrats make many paper-tiger monsters), but Trump can replace Rosenstein with one who will report to the people the stuff of Mueller's progress, whether or not it has merit. Trump can easily turn this into an investigation on Mueller's investigation. There is nothing unfair about such a thing, it's called oversight. The way things sit now, Sessions is claiming that he won't involve himself on behalf of Republicans because they are merely acting political, and then gives the reigns of power to Rosenstein who is clearly a player in the political circus, to the point that Mueller has total liberality in conducting his plots. No one knows what Mueller is doing, i.e. there is no critical oversight.

? The people in the political middle would probably not mind some oversight over Mueller. The voters in the elections months from now deserve to know, before voting, what Mueller has done thus far. Is Mueller preparing a bomb for election time? What's the stuff of that bomb? Is there truth behind it, or manure? The Republicans who oppose firing Mueller for fear of media backlash, as they say, would probably agree that oversight over Mueller is acceptable. So do it.

Wray just called his opposition to Trump his spine. That is, Wray pretends that his opposition is his steadfastness to a moral position, unafraid of being fired by Trump in the meantime. But it can't be moralistic because he knows the details of the FISA warrants but refuses to release that bomb on the FBI. His support of Mueller is, therefore, not something to do with his spine, but of his collusion with corruption. Mueller and the FISA warrants are one and the same movement. No one ever heard the media uproar over Russian interference until this movement was hatched, meaning that election interference was a part of the hatchlings. One can easily spot the stuff behind it as an effort to proclaim Trump's election invalid. Isn't that the stuff of politics, Mr. Sessions? He turns a blind eye and continues to let Rosenstein nurture and grow the Mueller "probe." This probe is an instrument inside the body of Trump, seeking a way to kill the body. Trump thinks it won't, but a kill could include the loss of the Senate this November. It's as easy as that. By letting this kill device probe liberally, Trump is doing his entire party a disservice. His enemies are boasting their spines while Trump is already looking lame.

He looks more lame as his enemies have forced him to say that he's not pro-Russia. He looks like a flip-flopper. I'm pro-Russia. What's wrong with that? What comes to your mind when I say, I'm pro-Russia? It doesn't mean I want Russia to do all the evil things the CIA accuses it of. That's why Trump should say, at this time, "I am pro-Russia, and let me explain." I wish for Russia to become a decent country, and to have decent leaders. "Pro-Russia" doesn't necessarily mean, pro-Putin. It's not my fault if my being pro-Russia makes you think I'm pro-Soviet or anti-Ukraine. I want Russia to grow out of Stalinism, to grow toward Jesus. Got a problem with that? I don't. I am pro-Russia. I do not think that Putin should seek a friendship with Europe because Europe is demonic. You can't argue with the facts. It is a fact that NATO is demonic. Satan left Russia and went to the United States, so to speak. Trump is on the side of the demons, with no intention of turning to Jesus that I can see.

I'm pro-America too. I wish that the Christians can defeat the demons now in charge. But I resist demonic America, we can understand the difference.

Demonic activity everywhere in American democracy. Mueller is now thinking to forgive Tony Podesta if he testifies against Manafort. The two men were both involved in corruption in Ukraine, but look: Podesta walks and Manafort is in jail with probably more to come. Mr. Wray, fink, does Mueller look professional here, or does it look like heavy-handed politics? You go against the very president who gave you your job even though it's plain to see that Mueller is acting to get Trump into serious trouble on a baseless premise. You don't deserve to be a law man...and Trump does not deserve to be a president for keeping you one more day in that job. Trump is responsible for allowing the dogs to tear the country apart because he refuses to put the right people in the top jobs that control justice and Intelligence.

Get up off the operating table, you bumbler, and kick doctor Mueller in the teeth. Show respect for your own body as his probe moves under your skin, seeking its weak spots. Don't just lie there scared of the liberal media. What kind of a bumbler is that?

Another example of hiring the wrong people is John Kelly, who leads Trump's White-House business. He's always been charged as having the stuff of going over Trump's head in bossiness. A Hill article this week says that Kelly's "counsel, they say, is simply not heeded." It sounds to me that Trump won't do as Kelly says, which frustrates Kelly. But policy is not his job unless the deep state wants it that way. The deep state includes the military, and Kelly is a military man. The same article: "Some Trump loyalists were particularly enraged by a Vanity Fair report published Tuesday evening that asserted Kelly had encouraged congressional Republicans to publicly criticize the president after his disastrous joint news conference with Putin in Helsinki on Monday." Now he's going too far by ganging others up on Trump if he doesn't do the Kelly thing.

We can't trust the New-York Times when it writes on Trump but here's what else the Hill writes: "A report in the New York Times the following day said Kelly prompted other Republicans to speak to the president, though it did not suggest he wanted them to go public." Of course Kelly doesn't want them to go public, since Kelly doesn't want the voters to know he's using leverage to be the boss in place of Trump on matters such as this. The article, as others lately, paints Trump as disliking Kelly, not a wonder at all.
http://thehill.com/homenews/the-memo/397990-the-memo-putin-furor-sparks-new-questions-on-kellys-future

Oh, Kelly is a respected military man, which is why Trump chose him to lead a disciplined White House, so that the president could look good for 2020. Didn't Trump know that the military has its own agenda to the point of sparring with presidents, or worse, in disagreements? If he had known, he would have asked Kelly his position on whether or not to befriend Russia, for it was the president's goal to do so from campaign times. Trump should have had the smarts enough to see that the Russian-collusion accusation was a tactic to keep him from befriending Russia, and that military men are likely to side with Mueller, therefore. So, the president, being something like naive, or a gambler at best, chose Kelly.

The article is written in a way as to bash Trump, and produce sympathy for Kelly, let's not be deceived. It says that Trump's main man now for advise is Bill Shine. That's why the left is attacking him right now on accusations related to sexual misconduct at Fox. Where have we heard that accusation before. Trump deserves this because he refuses to destroy corruption. Instead, he brings it into his own team. His best ally is Fox news, explaining Bill Shine. Here is the New York Times, right on cue:

Bill Shine, a former co-president of Fox News hired this month as President Trump’s communications chief, brought conservative credentials and heavy baggage with him into the White House. President Trump embraced the former and ignored the latter.

Mr. Shine, now struggling to limit the damage from Mr. Trump’s performance on Monday with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, was ousted from Fox News last year in the wake of a sexual harassment scandal at the network. <>P> Mr. Shine was never publicly accused of harassment, but he was accused in multiple civil lawsuits of covering up misconduct by Roger E. Ailes...

There you have it. No sooner does Shine come on board the team, that there is some dirt there. And perhaps there is some dirt there that Trump should have avoided, but we may never know the truth. Our hope is that Shine is a passionate swamp cleanser who will be able to work wonders with the president to that end. He has affinities with Sean Hannity, who might therefore have sway with Trump's future decisions on tackling the deep state. That could be exciting. Sean was passionate against the Seth-Rich controversy, just what the president needs now to prove that Guccifer didn't hack the DNC.

This looks like a better turn for the president, though Fox doesn't like Russia at all. Shine's Wikipedia article takes the space to say that his wife shared a pro-Russian thing. Oh-no, the sky is falling. The New York Times says that Mr. Shine an Irish-Catholic, but this alone doesn't say whether he is a practicing one as opposed to merely born one.

The article above is the marching orders from the Times to the liberals. We won't stop hearing about Shine's sins at Fox. One has no idea how many of the sexual allegations are purely fabricated by liberal women willing to lie publicly if it hurts Fox ratings. We might ask why no woman has come out to accuse Shine of misconduct, though the first might now come out seeing that Shine is with Trump.

For the record, it was this week that Trump announced the visit of Putin to the White House in a few months. It's like another flip-flop where he moves toward his initial attitude, less afraid of showing desire for peace with Russia. But I wouldn't call it a flip-flop, but more like a correction on the flip-flop. He's alerted Putin this week that if he doesn't agree to the Trump peace terms, Trump's prepared to become his worst enemy ever. This could be political hype to counter the Russia haters.

Just as Trump puts a question mark on the reliability of Intelligence, this comes out from Fox: "A [Muslim] graduate of Berkeley High School in California, who reportedly told authorities he wanted to help ISIS kill 10,000 people in the San Francisco Bay Area, pleaded guilty to federal charges Wednesday, while his attorney claimed he was a victim of the 'system.'" How many people are framed by the deep state for its political purposes? The purpose of this story at this time can be to reinforce in the peoples' minds that Intelligence is a necessary evil.

Just look at that number: 10,000. It's so scary. "He then allegedly told an undercover FBI agent that he wanted to kill 10,000 people in the Bay Area with bombs and rat-poison-laced cocaine, the Chronicle reported, citing court documents." Why should we believe an FBI agent? It may be true that the accused is an ISIS supporter, but he may not be guilty of the charges. Intelligence would naturally chose an ISIS supporter if framing someone is decided upon. I might not be arguing in his favor if the timing of this report were not at this time. It stinks of public relations on the part of Intelligence.

We hear from Pompeo: "US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Thursday he believes that Russia will try to undermine democracies around the world for the foreseeable future..."The President understands what Russia did in our elections of 2016, and he has empowered each of us to make sure that it doesn't happen again in the 2018 or 2020 elections here in the United States as well," said Pompeo, who served as CIA director before he moved to his current role earlier this year" (CNN, but spoken on Fox). It gives me the impression that Pompeo is involved with CIA fakery, for he fails to give additional evidence, from his days as the CIA boss, of the interference.

It continues: "He said the problem is one that dates back to the Soviet era..." Instead of just providing some evidence that he saw from the CIA, he reverts to the old scary Soviets, exactly the thing pushed by the Russia haters opposed to Trump. The idea should be to urge Russians away from old-school Sovietism rather than to cause it to arise again. Pompeo is therefore one of the stupids that causes Sovietism to arise. He is one of the big, muscular guys i.e. who celebrate the big military muscle.

The Russian government, if it truly wanted to affect the American elections, would not bother with the silly things that its accused of by Coats and others. The probable reason that no American person was involved in the silly allegations is that the allegations are likely fabricated. It is easiest and safest for this staged false charge if all the culprits are in Russia, unable to appear in American court.

Ouch:

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters he was requesting a public hearing with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo next week on the administration’s Russia policy following Trump’s meeting with Putin.

...The push for a hearing reflects a growing Republican backlash against Trump...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/17/as-trump-walks-back-russia-comments-senate-summons-pompeo-for-hearing-on-helsinki-putin-russia-election-interference-meddling-intelligence-president-walk-back-comments-secretary-of-state-diplomacy/

Chances are greater that a Russia-led force will invade Israel from Syria if the Russia-haters continue to squeeze Russia's neck to the point of near-death. On the other hand, if NATO backs off, Russia can be made a reasonable "partner" with European affairs, and for that reason will be on its best behavior all-around. Wisdom escapes the Russia-haters. Give it a decade of treating Russia with some respect, and the old cold war will evaporate.

However, I don't know what is God's will in this controversy. I don't know whether He's setting up situations that lead to Armageddon versus it not being his style to set Armageddon up. While I believe that God has vengeance to pour out on that day, against all nations, I don't know whether Armageddon begins purely as a man-made thing, or with His twists and turns thrown in to cause it. I tend to go with the former so that man is fully responsible. When man brings the world to the brink of total destruction, God chooses that time to add his own wrath to the situation, which begins with the kings of the east at the Euphrates river coming against the anti-Christ's frogs.

As I don't know (for certain) when within the last seven years the first Seal is opened, I can venture a guess that the white horse of Revelation, the first Seal, is the American military bent on conquest, followed by the red horse of the second Seal to take peace from the earth. Might God have chosen red to indicate the Russians? I view the heraldic horse as code for the ancient Hros, for the Nordic name for horse was, hross. I see the Hros in the makings of "Ares," the god of war, and father of Eros. Slimy Ares versus Jesus in the last days, perfect. The Hros were, probably, the proto-Rus, who became more than the Russians. They were also the Danes and some Scandinavians, the root of NATO. The Saxo-English founders of America had been Danes (Rollo Normans) and other Nordics in their ancestry. One could get the impression that Armageddon starts and ends with the troublesome Rus of various types, the war mongers, the thieves, the killers, satan's sons.

The liberals are calling Trump disgraceful because he went against American Intelligence, as though Intelligence for them now represents pure Americanism. If Intelligence is proven to be a dishonest bastion, just like liberals, the latter will not repent from calling Trump disgraceful for correctly calling out Intelligence. But, the problem is, who is there who will attack Intelligence? Not Nunes. Who then? Hopefully, Jesus will set a stumbling stone that makes Intelligence fall flat on the back of the head, lights out. American people are pressed to trust the CIA as pro-American.

The 2017 intelligence report by the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency assessed that "Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence" (Bloomberg).

Where's the evidence of this? Is this speaking to the pro-Trump stories in Russian media, or in online news sites? So what? This goes on at all times on both sides. Just look at the bad press the Americans are giving Putin at this time. Isn't that interfering in his political affairs? The Moscow Times is a pro-West media in Russia. Hello? Please show us that Putin did more than merely allow Pravda to give Trump thumbs-up. Where is the very-damning evidence that this report swore by? If it was any good evidence, we would have seen it over and over again.

The accusations against the Russians includes dozens of thousands of Facebook ads. Can we see the top-worst 20 ads to get an idea of what they were doing? Not if this charge has been fabricated. That won't work for Intelligence.

"'I don’t believe there’s a deep state' at the agencies he’s led, the State Department and the CIA, Pompeo said, vouching for their employees." Nobody's pointing to the employees so much as to the invisibles behind the leaders. To whom do the leaders give worship? What forms their opinions and agendas? What about that Counsel on Foreign Relations, hum? To whom does that group give its advice? I haven't heard that it's advising Trump. Then who does it advise, hum? Did CFR get elected by anyone? No. It's not even a government org. And there are similar groups pretending to be the world experts so as to justify amalgamating their decisions with presidential administrations.

US Vice President Mike Pence and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo together urged US President Donald Trump to make clear his position on Russian interference in the 2016 elections after Trump drew a storm of criticism for apparently clearing Moscow of wrongdoing.

Pence and Pompeo held a conversation with Trump on Tuesday in the Oval Office during which they advised Trump to “make clarifications” about his position on Russian election meddling, NBC News reported, citing a source familiar with the conversation(AP).

Someone supposedly leaked that bit of information, but why would the leaker embarrass Pompeo like that? It looks like a jab at Pompeo, because he himself would never confess to making the president's mind up on his behalf. Isn't that like a deep-state tool? Yes. The one who says there is no deep state acts like a deep-state tool. OK, it's fine to disagree on things and to hash out different ways forward, but this is also what the deep state does, at every turn, until the president is in full compliance with the CIA agenda. Does that seem right to you? We might argue that Pompeo's will only happens to be the CIA will by coincidence. But maybe not. Perhaps someone knowing that Pompeo was acceptable CIA material convinced Trump to make him the CIA head. That's exactly how the deep state would operate, to get into a new president's face for to deceive him into picking the "right" people to lead his administration.

James Mattis found this week to be a great time to announce $200M of military assistance to Ukraine. The idea is to fuel the war against Putin's Crimea. Putin is not the aggressor in that war. The West toppled a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine; the Russian people there objected, and Putin went in to assist them. When the Ukraine-Western alliance got tough, Putin annexed Crimea. That's the reactionary way the world turns when the West makes a mistake. The West is responsible for forcing Putin's hand. So, go ahead and become more aggressive, Mr. Mattis, and escalate the madness, you sorry old man. You once said that killing is fun. May the one who kills you have fun doing it, and may you see him laughing as you die. Who picked Mattis to be the defense chief. Another sorry old man, Trump. Weep, Mr. president, for you promised something different, then gave the same old same old.

Gregg Jarrett claims that he has seen and exposed the footnote, in one of the four FISA warrants against Carter Page, that informs the judge about Hillary's payment for the Steele dossier. That is, up until now, the FBI has claimed that, while not revealing forthright to the FISA judge that the dossier was purchased by Clinton, nevertheless put the fact into a footnote. But that footnote, we are hearing, says nothing of the sort, at least not at face value.

That sort of trick is exactly expected where the FBI was playing games instead of playing fair, and Wray is guilty of deep sin, if this is true, for not exposing it himself. Wray's timing, now, for to come out and reveal his love of Mueller and Rosenstein, is excellent, because the whistle-blowing FISA train has yet to arrive to the station. Wray's only hope is to keep the train from arriving...with all its goodies for Trump. If we get to see the FISA applications with all of its gore, Wray will never get respectability again.

On July 20, the president of Judicial Watch announced that the organization is, on this day, set to receive, from the FBI, some documents on the FISA warrants. This victory was won in the courts, a method that Nunes and the other over-seers have yet to utilize. We wonder why not. Republican oversight doesn't have the Republican backing enough to impeach Rosenstein, or that's the excuse at this time, anyway. On the 21st:

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding today’s release of 412 pages of documents about FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrants...: These documents are heavily redacted but seem to confirm the FBI and DOJ misled the courts in withholding the material information that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC were behind the “intelligence” used to persuade the courts to approve the FISA warrants that targeted the Trump team. Given this corruption, President Trump should intervene and declassify the heavily redacted material.

The documents were due to Judicial Watch yesterday but were emailed around 5:30 pm today.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-carter-page-fisa-court-documents/

This was no small feat, Judicial Watch. The next step is to discover what was redacted to see whether there was justification, or whether the FBI can once again be labeled a pussy-footing fraud. The more that the FBI serves itself such damaging items, the better for the country. Where's Nunes' taking the FBI to court? Isn't this sort of controversy what the courts were made for?

One can make a good case to predict that the Mueller scam has the objective of putting out a Trump-damaging story weeks before the election, at a time too late for the Republicans to recover from the initial bang of the story.

By Friday, Trump says that Putin himself was responsible for interference. But how could Trump know unless he saw evidence from Intelligence. If Intelligence is proving to be demonic against Trump, why would Trump believe Intelligence on this matter? Is this president a sucker for punishment? Looks like. Let the people see the evidence.

Ahh, Trump may be behaving a good boy just because Friday was the day that another sex scandal hit the news, where a woman claims he committed adultery with him in 2006, the year after his marriage. He may be caving due to harmful things like this. But isn't caving a lot like giving the abductor the ransom? If you give him the ransom, he'll abduct again. If Trump caves, Intelligence will use the threats / blackmail again. It will never end.

Here's Sarah Carter saying it's time for Trump to declassify the FISA warrant applications, but this president has no ears to hear this. Why not? Because he a-scared of something, the only logical answer. He's more concerned with himself than cleaning swamp. Oh ya, he'll clean swamp alright, if he doesn't die politically for doing so. Wimp. Useless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmoZrpbtpSo

Podesta Collusion with Russia

The video above gets to a public statement of John Podesta, celebrating Rosenstein's indictments of the 12 Russians. This is important, because Podesta is suspect in complicity with the murder of Seth Rich, and Podesta knows that Rosenstein is now committed to painting a Russian picture for the DNC hack. So, Podesta wants to push this storyline to protect himself. It seems he's been nervous about being discovered, or he wouldn't have made the public statement.

By accusing Guccifer as the culprit, a troubled Rosenstein, fearing he could lose his job at any moment, was fishing for Democrat support at the highest levels, for Guccifer is a Hillary-Clinton / John-Podesta animal. And here Podesta comes out to raise his flag in support. This comes as Mueller is said to be prepared to sanctify, with full forgiveness, Podesta's brother. This is such a disgusting war, with fake weapons. Trump is taking shelter even though the weapons can't hurt him. They can only hurt him if he does nothing but let them fly. But if he tackles this group of paper tigers, he'll trounce them silly to defeat. Start with exposing the FISA warrants, stupid. Cut Rosenstein's feet from under him, then use the exposure of his corruption to replace him. Get the evidence against the 12 Russians, and expose it as the fake weaponry that it is.

Will Hannity slap Trump across his face to get him to his senses? No, for he's too busy trying to get Trump re-elected. Forget 2020, and get on what needs to be done. Get together and just do it. If Mueller has no weapons against Trump, why isn't the latter attacking? Ahh, because he does have a real weapon. It may not be collusion, but he does have something. This situation amounts to Trump first, people second. Yup, that's what human nature predicts. Trump needs to stop saying he's working for the people, or I will puke.

If you care to go to the 6th minute of the Hannity video below, Sarah Carter can be heard saying that Shumer, who's on Oversight but lock-step with the deep-state mob, asked Dan Coats not to send evidence to Oversight on his assertion of Russian meddling. It's easy to see what's happening. There is no evidence, and/;or the evidence will blow up in their face because it was wrongly presented to the people. Trump has a golden opportunity to clear himself on Helsinki, but the dope went and flip-flopped so that he can no longer take advantage. Correct your mistake, bumbler. Take your mouth off of the tit of slutty, obscene Intelligence, and instead give it the boot it deserves. Send it naked into the streets to beg.

FISA is a deep-state court that winks to deep state demands. A deep state is defined as an unelected group or conspiracy energized to conclude an agenda(s) with or without the lawmakers or president on-side. Generally, the deep state has gun-carrying members and other law people. It is similar to a third-world police state where the rulers are weak push-overs. Therefore, the deep state has measures and tactics to weaken a president or a lawmaker when need be. It's a no-brainer to guess-timate that much, but there is a whole lot more that can be imagined. Trump is acting the push-over. He merely cries against the deep state. He comes up shy, like a boy or a push-over. He refuses to be a man standing about this. He's merely a boy crying.

The problem is, Trump says most the right things against the deep state, and against the Democrats. But in action, he's the nothing. Just nothing. He has done nothing, absolutely nothing, since firing Comey. The deep state under discussion was prepared to join president Hillary because she was their sister, same globalist blood, under the same blankets in incest with them all. She was prepared to become the prostitute of the CFR. They were all banking on her corruption. They knew her corruption because their Intelligence machines watched her emails, her communications, to assure that she did the pimp's bidding. And they tried to make her the queen for that reason. Trump beats her, and then does nothing to take down the pimp's men, even though he has a huge army that will fight for him.

You may have heard in the news that Clintons were selling state secrets to Russia. That can easily explain her private server, which was an invitation, at a price, for Russians and others to have state secrets. As I see it, roughly, her group would make the deal with the enemy, at a fine price, and then inform them of the day that she would spill the secrets in her email(s) upon her private server; in this way she doesn't appear to be selling / spilling the secrets, but can make it appear as though the hacked her server (a hacking which she of course facilitates on their behalf).

If you go to the 9th minute of Dan Bongino below, you will hear of the sale of state secrets by some players touching upon Tony Podesta (brother of Hillary's campaign manager in 2016) during the time that Hillary was Obama's foreign minister:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvsLrrutXQ4

The Russian bank in that 9th minute is mentioned again in the 21st, where Bongino repeats Salon as saying that the bank "hired" the Podesta group, no small or inconsequential relationship. This discussion dovetails ever-so well with the fact that the United States sold Russia the rights to American uranium mines while Hillary was the foreign minister of Obama. It also compliments those who say that Obama is the communist enemy of the United States. Therefore, the Mueller probe is more than a probe inside Trump's body. It' also to protect against the true Russian colluders, or to project Obama's sins with Russia onto the Trump body.

Probably, knowing that Russia is not a threat to the United States, CIA leaders were involved in the sale of state secrets. No one has more state secrets, as pertains to what foreign nations seek, than the CIA. Therefore, John Brennan is suspect in selling state secrets in partnership with the Clintons. The CIA makes a Russian monster to increase its spy powers, then, with convenient positioning, sells data to the Russians. Suddenly, we can start to define Hillary's reset button as a red carpet for the Russians, an invitation for friendship, for the sneaky purpose of making money corruptly. And Obama's Iran deal may have been somewhat identical in its sale of state secrets.

At the 19th minute, Bongino says that Rosenstein was the prosecutor in the pre-cursor case against Uranium One, the company involved in the uranium-mine deal supported by Hillary. It makes Rosenstein look like the damage-control switch of that particular conspiracy.

Unbelievably enough, the girlfriend or wife of Jack Sava, the co-killer of Seth Rich, in my opinion, was involved in Uranium One. She is Lisa Kountoupes: "Kountoupes Consulting has been hired by Uranium One Inc. to lobby...".
http://hiddenamericans.com/politics/breaking-wikileaks-emails-ties-podesta-brothers-doctor-oversaw-seth-rich-died/

It could appear that Democrats want to be voted into positions of power for the express purpose of manipulating tax-payer money, or using state assets, for funnelling money into their silos of cash.

FISA Warrants

The handing over of the FISA data by the FBI this week should be a major topic in the coming weeks at both sides of the media. The Democrats and the Wray team will argue that it is standard practice not to name names in FISA applications, that the substance of the matter is sufficient for the judge to make a decision on whether the warrant should be granted. In other words, the FBI failed to disclose to the judge that the dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton, but that this is fine-and-dandy standard practice, However, the warrant application was asking to have FBI spies on a Trump-campaign member so that the full exposure of the name of the dossier's purchaser is absolutely necessary. The liberal media will dig into their own wounds deeper by denying it, and Wray will look like the juggling clown that he is.

On early July 22, a Trump tweet: " .@PeteHegseth on @FoxNews Source #1 was the (Fake) Dossier. Yes, the Dirty Dossier, paid for by Democrats as a hit piece against Trump, and looking for information that could discredit Candidate #1 Trump. Carter Page was just the foot to surveil the Trump campaign...” ILLEGAL!" It appears written by someone other than Trump, though the president may need to OK all or some tweets written by others.

Even earlier on July 22, before 5:30 am, this Trump tweet: "Congratulations to @JudicialWatch and @TomFitton on being successful in getting the Carter Page FISA documents. As usual they are ridiculously heavily redacted but confirm with little doubt that the Department of “Justice” and FBI misled the courts. Witch Hunt Rigged, a Scam!" Yes, but why didn't Trump get this FISA information months ago? Hum? And now that he pretends to be for its release, why doesn't he remove some or all of the redactions? Hum? Is this some kind of lunatic-pretend game that Trump is playing with the masses?

The release was 412 pages long, lots of stuff. It was "heavily redacted," lots of stuff yet to see. A Fox article by Andrew O'Reilly claims: "The documents, which were released to the New York Times and several other media organizations that had filed Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to obtain them..." That's not true. The data was released to Judicial Watch from its FOIA request. The truth must be that the New York Times had its own request, with a wink of agreement that the information would never be delivered and therefore never publicized, unless the enemy succeeded in getting it, in which case the documents could be released to the liberal media so that they could get the first crack at framing the leading stories.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/22/dershowitz-slams-heavily-redacted-fisa-docs-on-page-wiretap-need-to-know-more-not-less.html

The parts that can be read do show that the dossier was central to the attempted justification for receiving the warrants. There is no reason that Trump can't release any of the redacted parts, for he has every right to see these warrants, and should have seen them long ago. He would be a piece of stool if he had not ordered them long ago, and he is a piece of stool for not revealing the redacted parts now. The president is playing with his voters, whether or not he actually writes the tweets they wish to hear.

He is not being straight with voters. Had Judicial Watch not obtained this data, Trump would probably have pretended that he had not seen it himself. How little does he care about the case of his voters when he pretends not to have seen the warrant applications? The New York Times, when taking credit on Saturday for the release, adds, "Mr. Trump had declassified their existence earlier this year." I can't read all the news; perhaps I missed this bit where Trump declassified the applications. Or, perhaps Trump kept it secret hoping that the applications would never see the light of day. Which is it?

In case you'd like to see it, the video below has Goodlatte claiming that he read the applications without most of the redactions. Yet he still claims that the dossier was central to them:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/22/dershowitz-slams-heavily-redacted-fisa-docs-on-page-wiretap-need-to-know-more-not-less.html

It is nonsense to argue that it looks bad for Trump to order the release of the applications because it serves his own self. Since when is protecting oneself against accusations a look-bad thing? Anyone accused by a government operation has the full right to government documents that can fight the accusation(s), especially a sitting president. He has no excuse for not revealing these applications months ago. Trump, FARCE! His tweets likes to use caps with exclamation marks, and so do I. TRUMP FARCE!

Goodlatte believes in fantasies where, at the 7th minute, he says that Wray is trying to reform the FBI, or to purge its politicization. On this page with Trump's last 1000 tweets, "Wray" does not exist. The president will not criticize Wray. TRUMP FARCE! What the voters expect is for Trump to take Wray by the cuff of his shirt, and, while spewing wet saliva glands into his face, demand the papers on his desk by morning that everybody and his grandmother has been demanding. The FBI is not above the people. The president acts for the people when they oppose an FBI operation, but this president does not act for the people even when they are his own voters. TRUMP DISGUSTING!

Trey Gowdy has read the FISA applications. He said to Fox news this week that the infamous footnote in no way reveals that Clinton partially paid for the dossier. This application is, therefore, FBI-Clinton collusion, though these two parties were not alone in working this plot. The exposure of this plot is central in weakening / ruining Intelligence, and it's not over yet.

One would think that, at this point, all moral Democrats would put down their guns, and raise the white flag in surrender. It looks like Clinton framed Trump and thus deserves to be in jail. But, no. Instead, Democrats will demonize Trump to justify Hillary's actions as one of a savior.

It would be a missing of the mark to believe that the dossier was created merely to spy on Carter Page. Nor did Hillary and the DNC pay (more than a million dollars) to invent the dossier to publicize it after the election. It was intended to be advertised before the election, right? What went wrong? Here's from the New York Times on the day of the FOIA release:

“This application targets Carter Page,” the document said. “The F.B.I. believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government.” A line was then redacted, and then it picked up with “undermine and influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election in violation of U.S. criminal law. Mr. Page is a former foreign policy adviser to a candidate for U.S. president.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/us/politics/carter-page-fisa.html

There we can see that the FISA plot is kit-and-caboodle with the reports from Intelligence stooge, Dan Coats, that there was Russian interference in the election. We never heard about such interference until the dossier plot was hatched. Republican leaders have been duped by Intelligence to believe that the interference is correct even while the Steele dossier is garbage. Shouldn't they reconsider, or at least hold-off?

The NY Times article continues:

Visible portions showed that the F.B.I. in stark terms had told the intelligence court that Mr. Page “has established relationships with Russian government officials, including Russian intelligence officers”; that the bureau believed “the Russian government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with” Mr. Trump’s campaign; and that Mr. Page “has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government.”

How could a FISA judge refuse to give the warrant in view of such scary language? In the end, the FBI bomb proves to be a dud, or better yet, a bomb under its own arse. Should we expect a faked terror attack this coming week to defuse this story? How will the liberals spin this story to innocence? We expect the Times to lead the way, so what does the article say? Here's the best it could do:

The application shows that the F.B.I. told the court it believed that the person who hired Mr. Steele was looking for dirt to discredit Mr. Trump. But it added that based on Mr. Steele’s previous reporting history with the F.B.I., in which he had "provided reliable information," the bureau believed his information cited in the application "to be credible."

OK, so now we have the FBI coffin before us, and the Times has the special task of keeping it from getting it nailed shut with Comey-and-gang inside. The FBI knew it was sinful not to reveal to the judge that the Steele dossier was politically motivated, but they blamed the politicization on merely a "person" known by Steele. They didn't say that this person was Hillary Clinton. The judge should have asked who it was that paid for the dossier since it should have been clear to him/her that the FBI was hiding the name.

What the article doesn't say is that it was despicable for Hillary to have paid for that dossier, and just as despicable for the FBI to use it under those circumstances to get spy permission over the course of one full year. Never mind how the FBI tried to fool the four judges; the issue is the criminality of Hillary and the FBI for together seeking to topple a presidential candidate. The New York Times doesn't want this to enter your head. You are to focus only on whether the FBI tried to fool the judges.

Here's the released material as offered by the Times, in case you'd like to examine some of it:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/95-carter-page-fisa-documents-foia-release/full/optimized.pdf

On Sunday, Tom Fitton released a short video saying that House Oversight nor the media are seeking FOIA request on the scandals surrounding Trump, yet the Times took credit, by a FOIA request, for obtaining the FISA material. Fitton claims that it applied for these documents a year ago, and was slated to receive them Friday, the day before the Times got them. On Saturday, perhaps before Fitton learned that the Times had them, he said (video below) that the DoJ was mailing the package to him on Monday i.e. apparently to let the Times get first crack at telling this news. It also makes the applications look more innocuous if the liberal-stenchy Times is shown applying for their release.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5812056800001/?#sp=show-clips

The Times claims that Trump had declassified these documents, but, on Sunday, CNN contradicted that claim: "The FBI on Saturday released a redacted version of its previously classified foreign surveillance warrant application on Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page..." The Times must be tricking the reader by referring to Trump's declassification of the Nunes memo, which only spoke on the FISA applications. The Times framed the sentence above to appear as though the president declassified the applications.

The CNN article does give credit to Judicial Watch (but also the new media), and adds that all four applications on Mr. Page were released this weekend. It's a great turn of events. There is much ammunition to be had here just in time for the election. If I'm not mistaken, three of the four applications were timed after Trump won the vote...meaning that the FBI continued to hammer Trump with a Hillary-sponsored dossier even after she lost. What do we call that? I call it an FBI hammer to the FBI head, and Comey is no more because of it. But it's also an FBI hammer to Hillary, assuring her infamy to this day. Just as she's trying to re-arise, she'll be in the news as the gal who paid for the dossier, hee-hee, it's so right. But if she is not sent to prison, then America refuses to be a proper democracy. The name of the Democrat party becomes the American shame, and Putin looks all the better for this. The world will choose Putin over America once they see how the Democrats treat this issue.

"Democrats, however, say that the FISA warrant on Page was justified because of his contacts with Russia..." In that case, why didn't the FBI get a FISA warrant on Tony Podesta, or any number of other Hillary supporters in contact with Russians? The more that Hillary is tied to Russian issues, the worse liberals look for the coming elections. And that's why it is inescapable that Trump is the rat's arse on behalf of his voters who will cringe to see Democrats back in power. My terminology for describing Trump is becoming vile the longer he puts off action, simultaneous with putting on his Tweety-bird facade like hot air from his arse. He is under pressure now to declassify the redactions, or at least most of them, and he should also allow Nunes to view what few parts he allows to remain redacted, to assure us that Trump's not playing games.

"In a statement Saturday, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, said the applications 'underscore the legitimate concern FBI had about Page's activities as it was investigating Russia's interference.'" Never mind that, CNN. Talk about Hillary's role in the dossier if you want to be respected for your news. Talk about why the FBI would take a Hillary-sponsored project as the main devise, by far, to get the rights to spy on Page? And ask Schiff why he didn't want this FISA information to become public, even lying about why it shouldn't be.

Dooms-day is here for Trump. He must declassify the FISA material, or suffer a dooms-day cloud. It's all downhill from here if this FISA issue remains in the dark. It is precisely because he's tweeted so long against the dirty dossier and Hillary that he's now expected to reveal the redacted parts. On behalf of his voters, it is his duty to clear his name, to protect his presidency, and to more than retain their powers. The voters deserve vindication from the false accusations of the left. They deserve to be respected for being on the correct side of this controversy all along. They called Hillary and company out as criminals, and the left mocked them. It is Trump's duty to more than justify them. They must be raised on a pedestal, and from there they can call out for further action and exposure on the Clinton crime ring. But Trump has not been willing.

Plus, rather than raising the voters onto a pedestal, he's more likely to raise himself upon one, and Fox will likely give him credit for what others have accomplished, what he refused to accomplish.

This is incredible:

"These documents affirm that our nation faced a profound counterintelligence threat prior to the 2016 election, and the Department of Justice and FBI took appropriate steps to investigate whether any U.S. persons were acting as an agent of a foreign power," Schiff said (same CNN article).

Let me get this straight. The FBI was very concerned about interference in the election, and in the meantime knew that Hillary was using a false dossier (Comey called it out as garbage) to interfere in the election, yet they spied on Page but did not spy on Clinton or her campaign people, even though Comey knew that Hillary had broken the law on other matters too???? Incredible.

Ok, so the left's strategy at this time is to focus upon, and stress, that the FBI innocently and sincerely believed that Page and Trump were involved together with helping Russia swing the election for Trump. It's laughable already, but, the point is, why didn't the FBI target someone more-grossly involved with the Russians than Page? Because, we may gather, there wasn't anyone else on team Trump who had been in contact with a high-level Russian. This is another thing that will come to the minds of Independent voters. Page's incidental bump-in with such a Russian was hyped into a full-blown conspiracy in order to compliment the dossier.

Spying on Page was not part of the to-be-public part of the plot. It was the dossier that was to become public so soon before the election that the Republicans were not going to have the time to recover from the blast. Hillary must have been giddy two weeks before the vote. But, days later, Comey came out with a bomb under her arse, and at that very time retracted the dossier bomb, refusing to set it off under Trump. The details of this miscarriage of Hillary Clinton would be gleefully entertaining if they were to come to light. Her tears, and her tearing out her own hair in near, fatal madness became our entertainment, but she's a sucker for more punishment because she's re-arising at exactly the wrong time.

Here's what must have happened. The dossier wasn't deemed credible in Comey's eyes, and so he didn't want to release it at election time. Instead, he used the dossier to get some spy eyes on the Trump team, for while spying on Page, they could justify spying on other Trump-team members, and of course on the president. Comey's hope must have been, along with that of Strzok's and McCabe, to get reliable dirt on Trump using the dossier to fool a FISA judge. The dirty guys had the filthy Obama on side, and the plot failing thus with president O on the captain's chair should be our further entertainment. With glee do we take his failure, because his victory would have been sheer satanism. And that's another reason that Trump is a fink, because, in winning, he did not pay his voters off with the complete demise of Obama, and his jailing. He hasn't even tried so far as we can tell who keep tabs on the daily news. Instead of paying off the voters, he gave his own corporations a huge tax cut.

Obumba is re-arising as we speak. The scared jungle bunny gave a speech in Africa this week, not courageous enough yet to give one in the United States. It would appear too much like interference should he do it in the U.S. We can be sure that he's looking for the open window to address his voters from a pulpit in the American media. Obama loves the limelight, and would love to steal it from Trump. But it's risky for a bunny to come out of its hole with so many hawks in camp Trump.

We keep in mind, as we follow politics, that Jesus promises us some wings for to fly high above this present world. This is not all there is, not what there will evermore be. This is a sick situation that we don't want for long. God's enemies are making for a sick situation where every social issue is contorted out of shape, in order that they might rule over us, make life more miserable for us. For a while, we should fight with words against the plots of the demonic. If demons have the right to speak, then so do we.

The Democrats are gambling by trouncing on Nunes at this time, saying that he lied in his February memo when saying that the applications didn't mention the purchasers of the dossier. Nunes wasn't lying. The footnote did not tell that Hillary or the DNC had purchased it. Democrats are risking much because the redacted parts may be their total undoing. They are redacted for a reason, and Democrats are too foolish, apparently, to realize that such huge areas of redactions must go counter their positioning on this matter. The redactions are hope for Trump voters that the Democrats are in more trouble tomorrow than they are this weekend.

Trump made the voters wait until now, though he could have released the applications unredacted back in March. We wait for Trump to give us the full scoop, and the more the Republicans are in trouble as election season begins, which is roughly now, the more that they might want Trump to unveil the redactions.

The partial release of these applications makes it harder for Horowitz's to water down his official investigation into this very matter. With the redacted parts to be imminently unredacted, he's got to come clean with what the redacted parts state. Horowitz is in trouble if he thought he could ignore the redacted parts. If he started to write his report with that framework in mind, it's time for him to start again with a new, truer storyline. He cannot now leave out the most-important points in the redactions. He needs to come clean whether Trump reveals them or not...unless Trump assures him that he will never reveal the redacted parts. In that picture, this conspiracy becomes ever-so tingling beyond the capabilities of the best spy novels to date.

To clear itself, the FBI needs to show that, after the first 90-day application had run its course, there was need to request another 90 days to spy on Carter Page. Such need would require that the first 90 days increased the chances that Page and Trump were colluding with the Russians. If nothing of the sort exists in the second application, oops. And if the same nothing exists in the 3rd 90-day application, oops, even the judges should be in trouble, or the entire FISA court altogether. Strzok and Lisa Page discussed Trump's Russia collusion during the course of the four applications, when Strzok told her that there's virtually no chance of there being any-such reality. Oops.

I predict that Loretta Lynch and Obama were together the captains of this FISA scam, more the captain than Comey. Obama may have by-passed Comey's office, choosing to deal more directly with McCabe, Comey's number-one underling. Whatever the specific truth, Obama is a there-there.

USA Today: "Swaths of the records released Saturday were blacked out because the FBI said they remain classified, including details about why the FBI believed Page was participating in Russia’s election meddling." Hmm. Why should the reason for the participation in the meddling be out-of-bounds to public view? Wouldn't it help the FBI case to let the people know the reason(s)? Absolutely, if the stated reason(s) is reliable. But if it's a joke, thus the redactions.

What could possibly be the motive for colluding with the Russians but to get Trump elected with increased chances? We expect that to be Page's motive, if the FBI version of the event is correct. The FBI would wish to reveal such a juicy detail, but, because it's not revealed, it's not likely in the redacted parts. And when the redacted parts are revealed, we can check to see whether the FBI lied as to why if chose the redactions. The FBI is in a heap of fresh manure in a hell-hole...if Trump is good enough to declassify at least most of the redacted parts.

Trump has the applications unredacted in his possession, we can be sure, or he's not really the president. If he still does not have them, then he's a puppet of someone above his head in an accepted authority structure the voter knows nothing about. The president can view the redacted parts, and ask Rosenstein why each and every case should remain redacted? The president can then report to the people the reasons given by Rosenstein, both to keep the latter as honest as possible, and to catch him in his tricks. The president doesn't need to be bothered to do this questioning himself. He can ask any number of thousands of supporters who would be more than happy to do it for free. Trump has Rosenstein, Wray and Mueller right where he wants them, if indeed the president is sincere in wanting to catch these rats. Although we should be able to predict easily that the president will reveal the whole, I'm not at all sure he will.

Trump likes to act as though he's as helpless as you are in obtaining these FISA records. There are other FISA records that he should have obtained, through someone more trustworthy than Sessions, to check up on how else the FBI was abusing its powers, in other matters, over the years. That too is part of cleaning swamp, but this president has shown no desire, in his actions, of cleaning swamp. A man like that should be considered a germ on the White-House chair.

The FBI boss under Trump did not clarify this week, when claiming that Russia interfered with the election, whether Page was part of it. If the FBI before him was lying about Page, why would Wray believe anything other Intelligence people report to him on the very same matter? Is Wray just stupid? No. His attitude doesn't fit a naive or stupid man, but more like fellow conspirator. The third option is that he's simply following orders from Rosenstein, which makes him look too spineless to be an FBI boss. If he can't uproot Rosenstein if he wants to, he has no right to a job in law enforcement. A good FBI cop would upend Rosenstein because the Carter-Page ordeal, which the FBI boss has full access to, shows that Trump did not collude with Page whatsoever. There was no fifth FISA warrant given, suggesting that the spy progress, as per the four applications, turned up nothing for Mueller and Rosenstein to bite into, by the end of 2017.

In other words, knowing now that the FBI found no collusion between Trump and Page or Page-Trump and Russia, the FBI boss has no right to call Mueller's investigation "professional," or to give it thumbs up at all. We can gather this conclusion because the FBI is drowning in its own puke at this time, yet Mueller has nothing of a remedy. Rosenstein can't offer even a tid-bit of collusion to make the FBI sit up feeling better. If Wray were a good cop, he would take out his gun and shoot the FBI horse dead, put it out of its misery, then get a new horse. But Wray is instead finger-locked with Rosenstein on a mountain pass to nowhere. He knows the path goes nowhere, but he's sworn by some mystic duty to be a part of the conspiracy. Their only hope is to fabricate a path to somewhere respectable, part of which was the indictment of 12 Russians seen only a week ago. Wray is hanging his badge on that farce. Good luck.

U.S. Intelligence, with this issue in the wake of the past two years, can now better hack voting machines from Russia's backyard, claiming that the Russians are doing it in case they get caught. The idea is for Intelligence to rig elections using electronic voting apparatus (the people really should have seen this coming), in order to elect their own bananas to power. Just like that, a banana republic in the United States. Unless Trump re-attacks election rigging, the nation will be in chaos. The best thing: get back to paper votes and manual counting. Electronics are too easy to tamper with, and the corrupt will worm their way into supplying the voting machines pre-programmed for their alteration capabilities from remote locations. It's a no brainer; they will at least try to do this. The Democrats are, we already know, corrupt enough.

The Washington Examiner is reporting what Russia Today is reporting: "Ecuador officials are planning to withdraw asylum protection for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and hand him over to British authorities. Lenin Moreno, Ecuador's president, met with British officials in London Friday to finalize the agreement, according to the Intercept...He may be kicked out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London as early as this week, the Intercept's Glenn Greenwald reported." How do you say, backstab? Promise protection, and in the end betray.

It seems impossible that the embassy has forbidden Assange to at least speak with WikiLeaks people. But even if they did speak, they would likely be under the impression that the conversation is monitored, and thus not much of substance could be spoken in the way of trying to salvage the situation. If he's booted, he'll have a lawyer to work through, and we will then hear a little from him. If Britain sends him to the U.S. we will begin to see who's for and who's against. A rift of substantial size could develop in Trumpism over his fate. Those like myself who see Assange, at worst, as the lesser evil by far than Intelligence, will side with him. We can't justify his releasing random information that had no purpose in exposing government corruption, but, for doing the latter, he's appreciated, of course.

Stooges like Pompeo and Sessions will not entertain his accusations of government corruption, which is why it's important at this time that Trump has been the open target of rotten Intelligence forces. He cannot deny that Intelligence has rotten eggs that got into his own face. But if Trump supports the Pompeo stooge against Assange, then he gets the embarrassing kind of egg on his face. Trump worshipers then need to wonder why this president is a schizophrenic moron. Although he sees with his own eyes that Intelligence is slapping him silly in the face, he yet supports it. Isn't that a moron with a double personality? How else should I describe it?

The moron turns in to the law man the very one who offered to salvage him from being framed by the law man. Haven't I got that right? Yes, Assange broke the laws in many cases, but so has Intelligence. Pompeo is wholly unconcerned with Intelligence corruption, and sanctimonious in his desire to jail Assange on lesser crimes. It is improper to ask whether Assange should be jailed while ignoring whether Intelligence chiefs should be jailed for protecting the Clinton-crime ring. I give my vote to the lesser evil because he's no threat to Christians, so far as I can see. But Intelligence is the rats arse that will fornicate with Mystery Babylon, the mass-murderer of Christians. It's something for you to think about before you decide to support Trump in jailing Assange.

The problem is, Trump took the Pompeo stooge as his concubine, so to speak, when he made him his secretary of state. Pompeo is like his second wife. Assange doesn't seem to stand a chance. It may even be that Pompeo is the one who crafted Assange's ouster. But, God has the last say. I have reason to believe that God may be in Assange's future, as pertains to some key revelations yet to come.

If WikiLeaks had something prepared to unleash on the world, the best way to restrain it is to do what Moreno did to Assange. Even though WikiLeaks is technically free to publicize anything while Assange is unable to communicate with the world, there would be an understanding at the WikiLeaks headquarters to be on its best behavior while Moreno has Assange on the racks, just in case Moreno changes his mind i.e. allows Assange to remain protected. But what good would such protection be if WikiLeaks is restrained from doing its job at this critical time, when the people need Intelligence exposed the most.

I haven't followed Assange until recently. If I have this correct, it was liberals who supported him most in the past. The hypocrisy is that liberals now oppose him because he can support Trump. The evolution of the politics is such that liberals and corrupt Intelligence are now fornicating. It's perfect for the prophetic, anti-Christ setting.

The court cases against Assange, in the United States, might just be a lethal means to assassinate Intelligence. By the time of these cases, Intelligence may be mutilated by other forces in the Trump camp, and any court case can have dirt flying from both sides. You can be sure that Assange's lawyer(s) will throw mud at Intelligence, in other words, all-the-more so if Intelligence is already covered in its own blood from a lashing from Trump people. The start of that lashing is already in the past. Thanks to Brennan and Obama's role with the FBI, the lashing has just gone beyond the FBI to the CIA (both under the authority of National Intelligence). As the wounds get deeper into these two, other Intelligence agencies will pipe up in support, revealing that they too are the enemies of the people. Indication this week is that National Intelligence needs to become part of the exposure, especially under Clapper.

Squirrels, Mice and Dan Coats

Hmm, there are 16 American Intelligence agencies under National Intelligence, 17 in all with the latter. It reminds me of what I claim to be God's Sign, when I caught 16 squirrels in my attic a few years ago. If I recall correctly, it was the summer season after catching them in November/December that I finished enclosing my place with soffits, which blocked entry into the attic. But one more did get in that summer or fall, and, I claim, God had earlier provided two signs with it when it bounced twice off my chest on two different occasions. The total number was 17, but only 16 were caught, with the one rat trap. In other words, there was 16 plus the special last one that might just represent National Intelligence. This theory has not dawned on me before.

I can't be sure what happened to the 17th, but hasd assumed it died up there of thirst. I heard it inside the soffit immediately outside my bedroom window, but never saw it. As the soffits didn't allow the 17th to get in, I looked for the way in which it did get in, which turned out to be a small opening at the roof at the solar panels. I found the opening so soon after hearing it up there that I don't think it had time to get out of the building, though it could have. I blocked that path, and have since never had a squirrel up there. It did not go for the peanut butter set up in rat trap in the attic, which argues for its having gotten out of the opening before I was able to block it.

After the attic was closed off, the entry of mice was greatly curtailed. I had not seen a mouse on any of the three floors of the house for a year, getting on to two, until two showed up in the attic last year, which I caught directly under the solar panels. I laid two traps there for future mice, but none disturbed the traps over several months. I was telling one of my sons a week ago that I now set traps outdoors because those two mice had found their way into the attic. I cannot allow the walls and floors infested with mice, and so, I told him, that killing them all outdoors has worked to keep the house clear of them. Once two come along into the outdoor traps, I won't see any others for two or three weeks, when another two come along and get trapped before they have a family. It seems the best way to keep them out, I told him, rather than allowing them to form families near the house.

And that very night, after he went home, I heard a noise above the soffit (i.e. inside the soffit and within the attic's rafters) immediately outside my open bedroom window. I could barely believe it. I got up, went to the window, and assessed by the noise level that it was too small to be a squirrel. The next morning, up to the attic I went to check the two mouse traps that were set several months ago. I had checked them fairly regularly but found no mice in them. But on this morning, both traps had mice, but both looked dead for two or three weeks. Drats. The traps were re-loaded with peanut butter.

That evening, I saw a mouse on my main floor. It went under the fridge. Failing to get it to come out from under the fridge, I set up two traps and went to bed. I was sure it would be caught. From past experience, a mouse on the main floor would always snap a mouse trap, within hours at most (they get around, very active). In the morning, neither trap was sprung, and the fresh peanut butter was still in the traps. Hmm, that's weird. Where did it go? I knew of no way for a mouse to get in or out. The floors were fully finished, with baseboards all around, about five weeks earlier. I knew of no way for the mouse to get in, and I've built every part of this house, installed all the wiring and pipes. I knew every hole. Where did that mouse go?

Up I went to the attic again, finding one of the three traps sprung with a small/young mouse dead within it. Neither of the two traps on the second floor, or any in the basement, were snapped. I concluded that the mouse under the fridge returned to the attic. I don't know whether this has meaning with God. I feel a little compelled to record this story for any future event to which it may apply. No mouse was ever seen again on the main floor, and the traps remained as I had set them. No other mouse was caught anywhere in the house over the past week, and so the mouse under the fridge, the lone house mouse in this story, had gone up to the attic.

Roughly the day after I had found it dead in the attic, I opened the coat-closet door, and smelled a smell I had not smelled there before. On the floor I saw pieces of tissue torn apart. The mouse had done it. Immediately after tiling the floor, I had stuffed paper tissue into a hole in the tile floor to keep the foul air in the damp basement (natural-rock floor) from coming up. The hole was prepared for the safety-overflow hose in the tankless water heater that hung in that closet. The mouse I heard in the soffit had worked its way down the wall to beneath the main floor, where it came upon this tissue. It chewed it up and went through the hole, onto the main floor, was seen under the fridge, then returned to the attic via this hole, and was promptly killed in the trap. [Update, April 2019. There's not been another mouse in this house since.]

The 16 squirrels plus one were proposed earlier as a symbol of Mueller's 17 lawyers. This week, someone in the news reported that Mueller hired four more lawyers, all Democrat supporters, for a total now of 17. I suppose it's possible that the 17 squirrels could represent both the Mueller lawyers and the Intelligence agencies, because I expect a Mueller connection to Intelligence.

If the 17th squirrel is a symbol of National Intelligence, then the death of this young mouse this week could be a symbol of Dan Coats in the news this week, which is to say that I maybe should be predicting his political death sometime soon. And wow, I didn't realize until after writing the last sentence that the hole in the floor is in one of the two COAT closets! DAN COATS is the current chief of National Intelligence.

If that's not enough, a couple visited me yesterday as I write here. The male amongst the couple is DAN! And he was in that closet, asking about that heater hanging on the wall. Amazing.

I have told many times about one of the 16 squirrels that I called satan. I won't repeat the entire story. It was one of the few that survived the rat trap, but it got away inside my vehicle, and ran up into the HEATER under the dash! Was this an event set-up by God in order to connect the 16 squirrels to the hot-water heater in the closet? The car's heater heats water too.

I had to return home, from the brook at which I intended to free it. I left it in the vehicle upon my return. I figured it had gotten out through a hole under the dash, into the engine compartment, but that was a hasty theory, as no holes should exist there large enough to allow squirrels to get in. Some months later, as summer came on, I washed a pair of shorts and hung them to dry. When I put them on, I found a dead squirrel in the left pocket. It had gone through the washing machine. I assumed that I had left my shorts in the vehicle (it was cold by night, November/December), and that the squirrel under discussion died in the pocket while trying to keep warm.

The Lord gave my readers a dream through me at the first half of February, 2016, shortly before Intelligence people were gearing up their fight against Trump. In the dream, I was in Obama's billiard hall, where he owned it with a partner. The dream's particulars proved to me that the dream was from God, and his partner was, in my current opinion, Loretta Lynch, because all the billiard tables combined were arranged in an L-shape. At the outset of the dream, all the tables arranged in a L-shape, as seen by me from the ceiling view, were covered in a single, black sheet, a symbol, possibly, of secrecy.

In the next scene, I had the pool CUE in hand. This turned out to be a symbol of Perkins COIE, the law office hired by Hillary Clinton to purchase the Steele dossier. With this cue, I shot a PAGE on the table into a corner pocket. The Lord did a magnificent thing to prove that the flat piece of paper on the table, acting as the CUE ball, was to be regarded as a page for the Page surname. That was thought to be code for Lisa Page, but it could also be code for Carter Page.

As I could not shoot the page, as it lay flat on the table, I turned it into a paper airplane, then shot it. I missed the red ball sitting by the corner pocket, and the plane zipped fast into the corner pocket, a sewer shot. I knew by then that the Sewer surname is listed with SUTERs, and figured that it was God's code for Peter STRzok, for he and Lisa Page were together with the dossier plot against Trump. I reasoned that the piece of paper was turned into an airplane to indicate Loretta Lynch, for she was met upon her plane by Bill Clinton to talk about getting Hillary off from charges regarding her email scandal.

The dream ended with a scene in the BACKyard of the billiard hall, in which Obama was unhappy with an employee whose BACK was toward both him and myself. The back appeared meaningful, and here I can add that the Back surname uses a bull in the colors of the three bulls in the Heater Coat.

I can add that the Coats surname uses bars in the colors of the STUR bars. "STRZok" was suspect as a branch of the Sturs surname. Incredibly, the Back bull is called a STEER, which you can verify at the page below by entering "Back" in the box, and "STYRE" happens to be a variation shown for the Stur/Sturs surname.
http://www.free-coat-of-arms.com

I trace Sturs to the Stura river through Cuneo. This river is very close to Saluzzo, and it was established that the Clinton Shield and Chief is the same of the Saluzzo surname. You can enter these surnames at the Heater link above. It is likely that Clintons are of the Clint/Clent surname, and then the Stur-like Stars were first found beside the Sturs, and near the Clent Hills of Worcestershire, which area has another Stur (or Stour) river. The Clinton Chief has pierced STARs, and Pierce's are very connectable to Walerans (beside Pierce's) who in-turn share three bull heads with Heaters, the latter first found in Devon with Walerans.

Heater-like Haughts share the bull head with Heaters (and Mieske's/Mesechs), and are regarded by me as from Sigrid the HAUGHty, daughter of Mieszko I of Poland. The Mieszko's are obviously central in the naming of the Goplo Mouse Tower, and indeed the first historical (non-mythical) ruler of the Mouse Tower was Mieszko I.

Both Stars and Chives' use cat-a-mountains, and while Chives' were first found in Tarves, the Tarves surname shares the six, Clinton fitchee crosses. It tends to prove that Clintons use stars as code for the Stars. It was Mr. Starr who was the chief investigator into the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

A major scene in the Obama dream was where Obama was on a SKATEboard immediately before the employee-back scene. He was in his dark SUIT while on the skateBOARD, and there is a Suit surname listed with Sewers/Suters, who happen to use a version of the Board Coat. The Skate surname is listed with Sheets, recalling that the billiard tables were covered in a black sheet. It was today, I think, where someone used "skated" as a slang term for evading a jail sentence. Interesting.

The mouse and rat TRAPs were thought to be code for Poland's Traby, the Arms of which has what looks like a 666 built into the strings of three hunting horns. And TRABy liners are suspect with the TARVes surname. The mouse entity of the anti-Christ was resolved with Poland's Mouse Tower. There is a Trapp(er) surname that uses a bustard, the symbol of the BUStard surname that uses the colors and format of BUSH's/Buschs, who named Busca, beside Saluzzo. As per the rat trap, Rats/Raids were first found in Nairnshire with Bosco-related Rose's. Nairnshire is beside Ross-shire, and that's where BUSetts/Bisetts were first found who share the tree stump with Bosco's and Rodhams/Roddens.

The only heraldic mouse I know of is that of Misl's, and the Mouse Tower fits this because a mythical character of that tower was SeimoMYSL. The mouse on a bend in the Misl Coat is in the colors of the cinquefoils on a bend of Rodhams/Roddens. The latter can be proven to be a Rothschild / Rothchild/Roddenstein branch, and Rothschilds can be proven to be from Peter Pollock of Rothes castle, in Rothes, beside Ross-shire. Jewish Rothchilds (no 's'), for example, use roses as code for Rose's. The bend of Jewish Pollocks is in the colors of the Rodham/Rodden / Misl bend.

Recall the squirrel dead in my shorts pocket, for the Pocket/Poucher surname uses a giant cinquefoil colors reversed from the same of Bus'. Pockets may have been a branch of the Poke variation of Pollocks. Bosco's can be linked to rose-using Schore's due to similarity between the one's pillar with the others column. Amazingly, and I've said this at least three times before, I had hung the shorts on a post of the living room (while the house was under construction). A post is a column, is it not? The Short surname, first found in Dorset with the Stur river, is also the SCHORt surname. Amazing. The first Rothschild was Mr. Bauer, and Bauers happen to share blue wings with Schorts/Shorts and Backs.

I wonder whether the shorts, in going through the laundry machine with the squirrel, was code for money laundering. Where Intelligence is in the habit of creating for itself means to seize tax dollars, the thieves need to launder it, right? Yes.

I'm not convinced, thanks to Dan being in that coat closet a day or two after my discovery of the mouse hole, that Dan Coats is the thing that God is pointing to. This event is in the very update where Mr. Coats had been treated like never before. My only other mention of him was in the 3rd update of last November, where I quoted this from the Daily Caller:

“For those out there who may be listening or watching these announcements understand this: if you improperly disclose classified information, we will find you,” [Dan] Coats said. “We will investigate you. We will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law, and you will not be happy with the result.”

Ya, Dan, but what if something corrupt is disclosed? You forgot to mention about that. It is far more likely that an American will publicly disclose something corrupt than something damaging to national security. Are you threatening whistle blowers? What do you believe is Assange's purpose, to threaten national security, or to blow the whistle on the corrupt actors that Intelligence protects?

Why is God pointing to Dan Coats? This latest mouse comes after a short lull in Signs and dreams around my place. I'm asking self why it was a small mouse? Is it for the smallness of the anti-Christ, when he first rises? The prophet Daniel says that he will become large from a small force, and he's also called a "little horn" where he's described as a Seleucid entity. There can be no doubt that the anti-Christ must have a vivid smallness to himself prior to becoming a formidable army.

I do not think that Dan Coats is the anti-Christ. But I am now wondering whether God is trying to reveal that National Intelligence will be a fundamental part of the anti-Christ himself. That's what this looks like.

In May of 2010, a mouse came out of the BUSHes into camera view, at the White House's ROSE Garden, a few minutes before Obama came out to speak on national television. The mouse went across the steps, with Obama speaking, into more bushes on the other side. I can see God setting up that mouse for to make an Obama link to president Bush where both presidents were willing Intelligence slimes. Here's the Obama-mouse video; note that this thief is speaking on "financial overhaul."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H3e6phM28I

The mouse at the Rose garden is said to be a vole, which is play on "mole" because it's a species of mole. Intelligence is the creator of moles, right? Perfect. It's tending to link this latest mouse to Obama.

I have spoken many times in the past that the end-time Seleucids could be the Baathists whom Obama secretly supported. Or, more simply, the mention of the end-time anti-Christ in Daniel 8 and 11, as somehow connected to ancient Seleucid Greeks, makes me think that he will be linked to end-time Baathists. The latter were founded in Syria by two surnames, the Bitar and Aflaq surnames. It just so happens that Bitars and Aflacks share roughly the same cross, but the point here is that Bitars are also Butters while the latest mouse was killed with peanut BUTTER.

Obama's mother was a Dunham surname, and while Dunhams, first found in Norfolk with Flacks, share the English Randolph Coat, Scottish Randolphs use the BATH cross and even throw in a BAT. It is completely amazing that Butter-like Buttons/BIDENs are said to be from BATH and Wells...in Somerset, where Baths were first found (along with Battins/Badens who share the eye with the neighboring Stars). It's amazing because Obama chose Joseph Biden as his vice-president, and then put him in charge of Iraq, land of Baathists. Mr. Biden wants to run again in 2020, as some reports are saying. I had read that Biden was the true architect of the so-called "reset button" with Russia.

For those of you who know why I trace Carricks to the Cetina river, this following discussion makes more sense. It should be kept in mind that Keiths were traced to the namers of the Cetina along with cat-using Cetins/Cattans and cat-using Keats', all extremely linkable to the cats of Chives'. The pale bars of the Keiths are interesting for being in the colors of the pale bars of Coats', suggesting that Coats' could have been a Cetina liner too. Coat's share the rooster with Heets/Heaths/Heths, and MacHeths, who lived in the Moray / Ross-shire region of the Bath-related Randolphs, are suspect with the Atha variation of Baths. The Bath and Randolph cross is that of HADDingtons in colors reversed, and Keiths were first found in Haddington.

The paragraph above was born because the cat-using Pussys/Pussins (almost the Stur bars) have a variation, the spelling of which I've forgotten, but close to "Pussin," that gets another Coat of Arms sharing the suns of BATHgate's. And the Bathgate motto ("VIV ut VIVas") is that of Craigs too, the latter being the ancestry of Carricks, according to the Carrick write-up. "Carrick" is from the surname of Proculus Charax (1st century) of cat-liner Cetis, as were Walerans that we saw linked to Heaters. While Heaters look like they are from Sigrid the Haughty, she was the mother of king Canute, and we can read in the Pussy/Pussin write-up that Canute gave the Pussy family the Pusey location in Oxfordshire, near or even exactly where Clintons were first found.

Clintons along with Hillarys use the six, black-on-white fitchee crosses of Tarves', and cat-using Chives' were first found in Tarves. The Arms of Carrick is sometimes shown with these black fitchees, and Kennedys, who were first found in Ayrshire with Carricks and Craigie's, happen to show both the black fitchees and the chevron known to be the Arms of Carrick. Kennedys descend obviously from the pagan Kennati priests of Cetis. The black fitchee is also in the Cetin/Cattan Coat. The latter's Shield is horizontally split in the colors of the vertically-split Gate Coat, and half in the colors of the vertically-split Tarves Coat.

The Chives cats are the lions of Tailers and Tillers, but called cats for obvious link to Cetins/Cattans, for the latter two surnames are from "Tilurius," the alternative name of the Cetina river. The grandmother of Proculus Charax was VIBia, and so we can glean that the "Vive ut vivas" motto of Craigs is code for her Vibius bloodline. Thus, BathGATE's link back to her bloodline for using the same motto. And Gate's are suspect with "Geddes" from "Cetis" along with the Cedes variation of Seats, a potential branch of Seatons, first found in the Haddington area of Keiths. The Cedes' are expected in the "cede" motto term of Steers, which recalls that a steer is used, in the colors of the Heater bull heads, by Backs.

The king of Cetis, Proculus' father, was LUPUS Laevillus, explaining the "lupus" motto term of Cetins/Cattans. The same motto uses Coats-like "Cautes," which gets the Cottian-suspect Cotts. Cottians lived on the Riparia river to Turin, and Chives' were the namers of Chivasso to the near-north of Turin. Scottish Turins were first found in Aberdeenshire with Tarves'. I am alone in all of the heraldic discoveries placed before you in this section; don't bother trying to verify with others. God has been the producer of these discoveries through me.

In earlier years, Cetins/Cattans were first said to be found in Berkshire, which is beside the Oxfordshire they are now said to be from. Berkshire is where Susa-like Susans, Modens and Arcs were first found, and while Modens share a fretty Shield with Cotts/Cautes', Moden-like Modane is on an Arc river directly over the peaks from Susa, the Cottian capital. Susans share the lily with the Cetis surname.

I see that the Lupus-Laevillus line to Leavells connects to the Coat of Amore's and Damorys/Amori's, both first found in Oxfordshire with Pussys/Pussins, wherefore all four surnames are sharing versions of one another's bars. Amore's happen to share "Tu ne cede" with Steers, and Steers happen to share the Tiller / Tailer lion. Laevillus' wife was QuadraTILLa, suggesting that both she and her Cetis location was related to things on the Cetina/Tilurius river.

I'd like to add that the ancient city of Dan, when it was called Laish, has been traced to Lydians and/or the nearby Lasonii. Lydians were mythicized by the ancients as Lydus, son of Attis, son in-turn of Cotys, and that latter term is suspect with the Cotesii people group that I see as proto Cottians. In other words, "DAN COATS" happens to be a name reflecting the Cotesii peoples in merger with peoples from the city of Dan. I actually do trace "Laevillus" to the Laevi Gauls, and then further back to the pagan Levite priest (book of Judges) in the ancient city of Dan. The Laevi were on the Ticino river, where I trace Decks/Daggers, and the latter happen to share the red squirrel both with the Squirrel surname and with Carrick-related Gilberts (Arms-of-Carrick chevron). English Daggers happen to share the Shield of the Pussin-like Poisson surname.

On the Pontus due north of Cetis, there was a mythical Ceto/Cetus, a sea monster that was a close relative of Ladon, and the latter is depicted in myth as a snake/dragon, and is exactly the Laish line through the Lydians. Cetis (in Cilicia) therefore appears to be the historical embodiment of mythical Ceto, or at least one of its branches. Attis was the sun god of Phrygia, which was a country beside the Pontus.

Did I slice a snake in half this week in relation to that mouse that points to Dan Coats? Yes, and while Ladon was a snake, the mouse line goes back to Armenia's Mus, which was mythicized in CadMUS along with the Cadusii Armenians. The Cadusii can be traced hard to Dan/Laish and neighboring Daphne (modern Dafna), partly because the Ladon dragon was made the father of mythical Daphne (her dolphin symbol can be in the Poisson Coat). It explains why Daphne's alternative father, Tiresias, was given the Cadusii-like caduceus symbol, which has two snakes. In myth, Cadmus and his wife, Armenia-depicting Harmonia, were depicted as two snakes. We get it.

This was the cult that loved the serpent of Eden. It was at mount Hermon's Sion (in the general area of Dan / Daphne), which is where the book of Enoch, or the book of Jasher, I forget which, located some Nephilim, though if I recall correctly, the book called mount Sion by the name of Ardos. The Sion location in Switzerland happens to have the alternative name of Sitten, and the Seatons (dragon in Crest) happen to have a Sitten variation. I therefore feel that the Sitten-like tribe which named Sitten traces to SIDONians, for it just so happens that Laish was a Sidonian city. A branch of Sittens may have named the Cetina river, and ancient Cetis liners may have been cousins to this family group.

The Cadusii named, in my opinion, Kutaisi and Hattusa (Phrygia), but compare also with "Cotesii." Kutaisi was ruled by mythical Aeetes, a play on "Atti(s)", code for the real Hatti peoples that named Hattusa. The Lazi Caucasians (real peoples) had a Lasonii- / Ladon-like Lasona country smack at Kutaisi. Cadmus was made the brother of Cilix, known code for Cilicia i.e. location of Cetis. The Sensii peoples, marked on maps beside the Cetis-like Cotesii (modern Buzau river), are suspect in naming Sion, in which case the Sensii trace back to the namers of Sion at mount Hermon.

On Monday morning before this update is due, Rand Paul is asking Trump to punish the ex-CIA director: "“Is John Brennan monetizing his security clearance? Is John Brennan making millions of dollars divulging secrets to the mainstream media with his attacks on @realDonaldTrump?” Paul tweeted early Monday." A high-level politician would be out of his mind to tweet such an accusation if he didn't have solid evidence of the crime.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/23/rand-paul-calls-to-revoke-john-brennans-security-clearance-asks-if-hes-monetizing-access.html

Same article: "'Mr. Brennan has taken credit for launching the Trump investigation,' Strassel wrote, adding that Brennan 'took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was interfering in the election specifically to help Mr. Trump -- which quickly evolved into the Trump-collusion narrative.'" There you have it, the Obama CIA behind it all.

---