World War III, as They Call It
Russia's Not Backing Down
Deep State Versus Steve Scalise
I'm not taking email at this time, here's why. I apologize to all having left email, as I can't even mail to inform you. I may never be able to use the Yahoo email account again. We'll need to wait and see whether Yahoo changes its policy.
The AP article below says that Russians are trying to assess whether the ISIS top cheese, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was killed in a Russian bombing May 28 in the Raqqa area The Russians claim that 300 ISIS fighters met that day to discuss a retreat from Raqqa into Mayadin. This is interesting where we might expect the retreat closer to Turkey. Instead, Mayadin is further south than Raqqa, albeit nearer to the Iraq border, allowing the group to cross borders if it can help it avoid a dire crippling. This Russian bombing, of which the Americans were tipped off beforehand, reveals that Russia is not inclined to lay-off the Raqqa invasion as though the Americans owned it fully.
Although I may not be viewing prophecy correctly, my position has maintained a launching of the anti-Christ out of Mosul, as per Nahum 1:11, and then to northern Israel after his conquering of Damascus as per Isaiah 10. Mayadin is midway between Mosul and Damascus, and the American strikes against Assad's forces recently have been in the Damascus theater.
There has got to be a good reason that ISIS is talking about retreat to Mayadin. Their future in Iraq looks bleak against an organized and pumped-up, highly-successful Iraqi army. ISIS holds only a small pocket or two down by the Israeli-Syria border, but has much control of the Syria-Iraq border between Mayadin and Jordan. There are several media covering Mayadin's entry into the news, including at least one in Japan:
“The ground campaign has largely amounted to the U.S. just chasing the (Islamic State) cell around the battlefield,” said Jennifer Cafarella, a Syria expert with the Institute for the Study of War. “Every time we get close to it, it moves,” she said, noting even reports of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi taking haven in the Mayadeen area.
U.S. defense officials dismiss suggestions the coalition hasn't acted forcefully enough to prevent IS leaders from moving headquarters and regrouping...
There we go, the Americans need to defend themselves against charges that they are helping ISIS move from one place to another. The Japanese don't mind airing it, but American media will not, nor will the hawkish Republicans. There are times when the Americans have no choice but to bomb ISIS targets, because Iraqis and Kurds are watching and demanding it. But the Americans can purposely bomb in such ways as to do the least damage, or even to block passage of in-coming Kurds toward holed-up ISIS fighters.
"Islamic State group commanders have been moving their operations and families to Mayadeen for several months as coalition-backed forces began closing in on Raqqa, senior U.S. officials say. They’re arriving in an area controlled by Islamic State militants and populated by Sunni sympathizers." The Kurds have been conquering Raqqa province for months, mainly in a successful wave from the north, and this can explain why ISIS cannot escape Turkey-way at this time. There may be no strategic value in a retreat to Mayadin; it may be nothing more than the only choice. We can be sure that the Iraqis are covering their side of the border.
Japan Times quotes a Russian military character: "“Senior commanders of the military groups of the so-called IS military council, 30 mid-ranking field commanders and up to 300 militants who provided security for them were eliminated". Zowie, that's not small potatoes, yet I didn't see this story anywhere until now, almost three weeks later. The Americans must be very hurt at this news; had they been the opposite, they would have popularized the Russian attack. I'm reading that the Assad army is capable of going into Mayadin to finish the group off. [On Sunday, late this week, the Americans knocked down a Syrian jet in the Raqqa area in response to the Syrians saying that they won't take one more provocation. It feels like a thing that Trump would order, and I think he would say that, should Assad attack Americans in response, then go for all-out war with Assad.]
Here's from April of this year, the month prior to the first of two American strikes on Syrian soldiers: "[Trump's] Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Thursday that 'steps are underway' on an international coalition to pressure Bashar Assad from power, as President Trump was being briefed on military options for Syria – though what specific steps the U.S. and its allies might take in response to the latest deadly chemical weapons attack remained unclear." This contradicts Trump of earlier times, when he said that Assad is not the target. I suggest that Trump has deliberately played that way in order to set Assad up, on false charges, as the villain deserving of attacks.
The very same group(s) trying to oust the U.S. president by impeachment or other measure is the one urging the president that Assad must go. On virtually every day of the week, the president gets a briefing from one Intelligence agency or another, and so the CIA can easily dish Trump faked / spun evidence against Assad and Russia together, and in the meantime briefings from the NSA and FBI can make Trump believe that the terror threat in American is real. Or, even if Trump doesn't believe the briefing reports, he has little choice but to act as though he does, making himself like the man in the back seat, allowing the Intelligence people to drive the agenda from the cockpit. That's what's going on, or worse, so far as the CIA can help it. Presidents come and go, but CIA foreign policy remains the same. The worst cave-in scenario is that Trump is now gladly one of the globe-trodding goons hoping to get the CIA to stop persecuting him. Ever since Trump shot Assad's airport with missiles, Trump's come out on top in the Russia-collusion controversy.
Here's Trump veiling his thoughts, or giving mumbo-jumbo so as not to sound like he's contradicting prior words on the topic: "Asked if the U.S. would organize a coalition to remove Assad, Tillerson said: 'Those steps are underway. “It's a serious matter, it requires a serious response”...Asked if Assad should go, Trump said, 'He's there, and I guess he's running things so something should happen.'" It's like Trump is saying that something out of his hands should happen to Assad. No, it's not out of his hands. Trump's supposed to be the commander-n-chief, not the goofball in the back seat who can't answer the question above with any dignity or straight-shooting, straight-forward terminology. Clearly, bag-of-bones Trump is not going after ISIS, but after Assad, merely to protect his own thin skin. Once he's learned the language of the CIA, he will no longer be of benefit to any part of mankind.
Tillerson's Exxon wants Syrian land for pipeline purposes, doesn't it? Trump knows that people have to die for this. Too bad, I guess. And the perpetrators will die for their sins, too bad. We will forget them and turn to a new thing when Overwhelming Love fills the planet, from a Love we have never seen before. No eye has seen, no ear had heard, what God has prepared for those worthy to live on in the Coming Age. Probably, God has withheld the love he's capable of during the twists and turns of this pathetic history. God seems to be interested in making a contrast between this history and the Age under Jesus' rule. In this history, animals eat animals, but no more of that in the Coming Age. The spirit now filling the air will change, and the Power of the coming Spirit will radiate into living things, making all things healthier, more-vibrant, wiser. I have had a taste of that Spirit, and so have many others, and we all report how good and pleasant it is. But the Trumps of the world want money and luxurious things. Too bad, monsters, too bad. Revelation 18 has a great approximation of what the kingdoms beloved by the Trumps of the world will look like. On the day they are playing golf, their empires will collapse in a massive quaking of the planet.
However, I cannot at this time say whether the end will arrive in Trump's lifetime. I don't know how long he will live, for starters. I haven't the ability to answer whether he's the False Prophet or anti-Christ, or whether any specific prophecy will be fulfilled in the next four or eight years.
Here's the news about ten days after the Russian story above (strike on the 300 ISIS fighters): "The United States struck pro-government forces in Syria with airstrikes for the second time in less than three weeks Tuesday, declaring them a threat to anti-Islamic State coalition fighters and allied troops training at a camp in the south of the country." Assad is a threat to anti-ISIS fighters??? That's the first I've ever heard of that accusation. Everyone else says that Assad opposes ISIS, but here the Americans are phrasing things in such a way that Assad's war against moderate Syrian rebels is helping ISIS grow by reducing the number of anti-ISIS forces. This is laughable, the sort of thing one says when desperate to come up with a reason to attack Assad.
The ABC article that quoted the above tells that the Americans attacked Assad's forces because Assad's forces were attacking an enemy. Assad has every right to attack that enemy, and the United States has no right being in the country, let alone firing at Assad. Assad can never be the dictator that the CIA attempts to be. I guarantee you that if Americans rose up against the CIA to the point of overthrowing it, the CIA would have Americans killed in the streets, if military people come to assist the CIA. Historically, and going back to the start of kingdoms, a king would kill its own citizens when they are involved in a treasonous uprising to remove the king. If Assad has done so, it's not even surprising. What the West now does is to foment uprisings using CIA methods, luring the leaders, or faking it, to shoot on the demonstrators, using this as justification for war against the leader. I'm saying that the CIA and it's military protection -- the deep state -- would do the same should Americans seek to overthrow it.
Clearly, the Americans are interested in protecting the rebels under Trump's presidency, and so they must be slowly reinforcing the rebels while they try to force the Assad-Russia side to slow down its assaults. That means more Syrian lives lost, in the future, with the blood at Trump's feet. Make no mistake about it, the sin is that of Trump's for as long as it occurs while he's the commander-in-chief. In war, the American president is the king, having the authority thereof.
General Mattis, Trump's defence chief, has come out AGAIN this week to say that North Korea is America's biggest threat at this time. Is Mattis a mental case? So what if North Korea has a sassy leader who wants world recognition by cussing at the United States? Does Mattis believe that Korea is going to attack the U.S.? Is Mattis a mental case, and does he want Americans to fear needlessly? Or are his powers planning to fake an attack from North Korea? Mattis, shut up about North Korea. And shut up about Russia too. And get out of the Middle East; bring the world back to calm.
Mattis wants Trump to increase the war in Afghanistan. Mattis is nuts, isn't he? You really need to be a demon to send men to die way over in the United States of Afghanistan. Truly, the Republicans have been in there for selfish gain, and wasting someone else's blood for it. Great shame. As the Afghan war continued under Obama, it seems evident that people in the CIA / military want to be there. WHY? WHY? WHY? The people of the United States need to save all the money they can, and here is a great place to save money and human life too. Stop this war. Just tell the world that it's not a good idea to take Russia on, and be respected for doing the right thing.
Russian news: "The US has moved HIMARS long-range rocket launchers from Jordan to its base in At Tanf in Syria, Russia’s Defense Ministry confirmed, adding that the hardware could be used against Syrian government forces." ISIS doesn't have planes that require the use of these American missiles. The U.S. seems clearly bent on attacking Syrian planes. I don't think we will need to wait long for Trump's battle against Syria to begin. Actually, it already has begun. The last American attack(s) on Assad was exactly at Al-Tanf (see map) above. This is a strategic location at the Syria-Jordan-Iraqi border, where the Americans have a base from which they can feed Syrian fighters from Jordan, and where ISIS fighters (who conquered Tanf in May of 2015) can escape to Iraq if need be.
It should be obvious that Mattis had Assad's forces attacked at Al-Tanf due to differences of opinion on who should command that location. Assad has invaded the area because ISIS was there, but, of course, Assad wants to rid the Americans from that place too. With Turkey frowning badly on the U.S. of late, Jordan has become the focus for the sake of feeding the war against Assad. At this point, Russia stands firmly with Assad in warnings to the Americans not to attack Assad one more time. We have reached the red line here between the super-powers, and it's not Russia that wants to cross over it. The brute is the USA merely for weeny-teeny Syria, the oil pipelines thereof, and for installing a pro-American government to protect the pipelines...and other wealth from a strong Syria-USA pact. Certainly, the American intruders care nothing about the well-being of the Syrians.
Mattis is training Syrian rebels in Tanf, and wants a safe zone there to do so, but Assad is not permitted to do anything about it, even though Tanf is in Syria. Is Mattis thinking properly? Of course not. He's there to fuel war even while he says he's not. Literally, he said that the Americans have no plans to fight Assad, and yet he's training anti-Assad fighters in Tanf. Mattis is acting the double-speak idiot box. He's saying that the Tanf mission is to train the New Syria Army in order to fight ISIS. Baloney. In some parts of Syria, though not including al-Tanf, the Americans enjoy a ceasefire between Assad and the rebels to which the Russians have agreed. It's a no-brainer that the Americans will use the ceasefire to coordinate their next offensive against Assad.
If the Americans truly want to defeat ISIS, get out of Syria and let the Assad-Russia alliance do it. Assad is zero threat to anyone, let alone Israel. At the fullness of his strength, he was unable to attack Israel even with Iran's support. The chief idiot box, the CIA, wants us to believe that Assad and Putin are attacking Syrian schools, hospitals, etc. Revelation 13 has an idiot box called the "icon (image) of the beast." It will have power to speak the language of the dragon.
On June 15, the same date as the RT article above, there's a Washington-Post headline: "ISIS drones are attacking U.S. troops and disrupting airstrikes in Raqqa, officials say". The drone strike I read about, coming against Al-Tanf, resulted in three Kurd fighters killed, meaning that the Americans may have called for the strike by ISIS in order to kill a problematic situation with their Kurd allies. In the meantime that the Unites States provides ISIS with these cheap drones, creating the excuse to send in ground-to-air missiles, the drones can be used to attack, little-by-little, the Kurds going against ISIS. The battle for Raqqa can thereby be stalled. There can be in place an American plot to turn a great host of fighters inside Syria against Assad the moment that Americans engage him too.
The Mattis side claimed that Assad's forces at Al-Tanf were given warning shots prior to the major attack. Here is Syria's statement against that excuse: "The attempts to justify this aggression by the absence of response to a warning to stop the advance are unacceptable." So, what Mattis wants is for the Syrians to retreat whenever American warning shots are fired at them. So laughable. So far as I've read, the Americans didn't say that the Syrians shot back at the warning shots. We must assume that, because the Syrians didn't retreat at the warning shots, the Americans shot bigger. So, you see, the Mattis side is a bully, the boss-wanna-be in Syria, wanting the enemy to retreat whenever it says so with a rifle shot.
The Americans engage the Kurds as friends, discover their plots, then send signals to ISIS concerning those plots. It allows ISIS to resist for longer periods, staying clear of realized Kurd advances. The Iraqi's, on the other hand, learned to ignore American advise, and in so doing have taken Mosul (much-larger city) nearly completely while Raqqa's invasion has barely begun even though both invasions were ready at roughly the same time. The Kurds are at American mercy, to obey them, because the Americans have a carrot on a stick: to give Kurds the quasi-promise of their autonomy in Syria once the war is over, more assured if the Kurds fight against Assad.
This past week, the Iraqis conquered another Mosul district, with just one more to go before liberating the entire city. Also in this past week, Iraq conquered the Walidiya border gate near al-Tanf, which is problematic for ISIS fighters seeking to escape into Iraq. It tends to force ISIS fighters further south i.e. toward Israel, and all around Damascus' eastern sides. The Rudaw article reporting on Walidiya says that Iraq holds the entire Syria-Iraq border from west of Mosul down to the Jordanian border. That's a major accomplishment, a blow to the American agenda. If sparks fly, in frustration, between the U.S. and Iraq, Russia can take advantage.
Why do we think the Kurds are thus-far not in all-out war against Assad? It's an interesting question. Perhaps they think that there is no use in being part of a new Syria with ISIS having much of its controls. The Kurds would first like to cripple the Sunni fighters, then find their autonomy in Syria. The Americans are not happy about this situation. The moment that Middle Easterners attempt to rule with democracy, Western style, is the moment that civil wars will arise from the so-called minorities in a democracy. None of the proudly-religious groups want to be viewed as the minorities within the country.
Thankfully, with Christians, Jesus calls us to sit back in a minority role until He appears; otherwise Christians would have fought throughout history for the leading roles...which the Vatican did do in disobedience. Jesus' policy: sit back, play it safe, share the News, pay the bills, and rejoice in what is to come. Illuminati policy: kill everything Christian. And that's why God does not want these dark powers to have full control to the point of conducting systematic, literal Christian killings.
Likewise on June 15 from RT: "Qatar has signed a $12-billion contract to buy F-15 fighter jets from the US, the country’s defense ministry reported. The deal was announced just days after US President Trump accused Doha of supporting terrorism." But wait? Trump is against Qatar. How possibly can the U.S. be selling weapons to Qatar at this time? Well, they say that the super-elite fund the militaries on both sides of war, to profit from war, and then to go in and nation-rebuild once the war damage is done. Who pays for the nation-rebuilding? Not the super-elite.
In an article that would have us believe that the Americans are actually fighting against ISIS in a new way under Trump, we read:
The first and most important sign of change in the American policy in fighting ISIS was the parachute landing over four locations in Rural Tabqa on the twenty second of March, this operation led to the control over the highway between Raqqa and Aleppo. What is different in this operation is the American involvement in a face to face battle with ISIS which was forbidden during Obama’s rule who used air forces only.
The second sign is not paying attention to the human costs [sounds brutish, the way Mattis and Trump may decide to approach illusive "success"]...
The third sign is the negotiating strategy with ISIS, several negotiations were made with ISIS fighters in the main three neighborhoods of Tabqa. These negotiations were mainly about providing safe exits for ISIS fighters and their families and this was actually what happened. After the handover of the city, the text of the agreement was published but not confirmed by ISIS or SDF, it includes the withdrawal of ISIS fighters from the city, providing safe exits to the fighters and ensuring they arrive safely to ISIS controlled areas in exchange of their commitment not to spoil Euphrates Dam or force civilians to accompany their fighters.
"" One needs to be a government idiot box to say that the Americans were not at the root of these safe passages for the purpose of protecting ISIS. It tends to explain why the Americans took the road between Raqqa and Aleppo. The Americans were becoming so infamous, locally, for allowing ISIS to escape, that the American military came out with the statement recently claiming that it will agree to Kurds surrounding Raqqa on all four sides for a change, not allowing ISIS fighters to escape this time. Since that time, I have yet to read of any significant war in that city.
When we read above about the American coalition not taking care of human costs, it has to do with what I've just read, that, since Trump took office, American bombing from the skies is now more "random" (the word used by the reporter) than it was previously, implying more-precision targeting in the past. "Random" can be interpreted as hitting anyone but ISIS fighters. "Random" can be interpreted as sloppy work, oops, I missed, sorry about that, kids and Kurds, we'll try better next time. Let's chalk it up as a consolation on behalf of population control.
The Free Syria Army (FSA) is part of the Western fight against Assad. Look here:
Several questions were asked at that time, how FSA lost the battle? It was not possible that they lose it, ISIS fighters were only couple of tens [figuratively speaking] and the FSA and Islamic factions were thousands, there were no answers until recently when some military commanders said that they had to withdrew from Raqqa under International pressor [American pressure] and if they did not do that all the support would be stopped!
The writer uses an exclamation mark. I think the writer gets it, that the Americans did not want war between ISIS and the Free Syria Army, because, obviously, the Americans want both armies for to oust Assad. It's true that the Free Syria Army was weakened when abandoned by the Americans, and this has got to be the reason. The American agenda was to force ISIS fighters to flee war in scatterings, ruin ISIS leadership, and thus urge the scattered fighters to join "moderate" groups such as FSA that are "legally" under American oversight. Under this backdrop, "'The reign of the Assad family is coming to an end': Tillerson says Russia must choose to align with the US." Ahh, Tillerson has revealed the CIA agenda, to make Russia an American puppet in Syria.
There is no one to blame for the Syria quagmire but Obama. This is still his war. There is a question on whether Obama chiefly wanted ISIS to defeat Assad versus to invade Israel. The rudder of this war will turn toward Israel, sooner or later.
Russia is complaining today about "the recent move in the US Senate to advance a package of new sanctions against Russia in response to Syrian conflict and the Kremlin's alleged meddling in the 2016 US presidential election [which] 'came seemingly out of nowhere and for no reason.'" American media are acting as though, just because the NSA said so, the Russians were definitely involved in trying to alter the vote in the USA. This NSA accusation is all I need to see to verify what was already known, that the deep state is vehemently attacking Russia with false charge after false charge in order to scare it from supporting Assad, or, in the longer term if necessary, force it out due to lack of money. It is very obvious that the West is in-deep trying to fix (manifest) its globalism in the face of the Russian obstacle. But the tactics used are crooked, not inclined to make Russia happy about any US-Russia alliance that may crop up.
With Trump seeing first-hand that the deep state is pushing a false "Russian narrative," how can he now side with that senseless creature in his own foreign policy? Will president Trump put the creature in its rightful place way behind him, or will not-the-president Trump allow the beast to lead him like a pig with a rope to his nose? We shall see. Thus far, Trump has acted more the pig than the leader when it comes to the Russian and Syrian issues.
When Armageddon arrives, Trump's not expected to be glad, lifting his head up because his redemption is near. Instead, he's expected to cry the blues for all of his earthly fortunes coming to nothing. Have I got that right?
The Trump surname was first found in the same place as the Dol surname, and both use white on blue, what I've claimed to be Gog colors. Follow me on this heraldic topic and you will see some surprising things pertaining to end-time prophecy. Trump's were first found in the same place (Pomerania) as Teeters, the latter likewise using white on blue. But Trump's were first found also in neighboring MECKlenburg, which plays into what I'm about to show you on an ancient false-prophet cult of MUKsus.
It can be gleaned that MUKSus was named after MOKISsos, which was anciently off the northern shore of lake Tatta, explaining why Teeters should have been at Mecklenburg, and why Tattons are said to have married Massys. For this, we just assume that the namers of Mecklenburg trace to a Mokissos element, and we can tentatively expect that the bloodline to the Biblical False Prophet went through Mecklenburg...if the False Prophet is from Muksus. We want to test that theory.
I predicted (from as early as 2009-2012) that the False Prophet and/or anti-Christ will be a Meschin / Massey liner, from the Biblical Meshech, from years prior to knowing of Muksus and Mokissos some two to three years ago. In those earlier days, I was claiming that the royal-Stewart bloodline -- same as the Alan surname from Dol -- was essentially in charge of the American military in explaining its pestering of the Middle East and bringing the world to Armageddon. Midway between the royal-Stewart claim and the discovery of Mokissos, I learned that Robert D'Avranches, living in the Massey location of Ferte-Mace, married a daughter of a man of Dol. By that time, I already knew that Hugh D'Avranches ("nickname" was Flaith), the uncle of the first-known Meschin, was connected to the Dol Alans (descended from Flaith-like Flaad).
It all works like a charm where I see "AVRANCHes" as a term from "VARANGi," and where I trace "VARANgian" (9th century AD) to the VARNi (1st century AD) of Mecklenburg and Pomerania.
There is no other point to what I've begun here this morning, than to show that the American military now under Trump is a candidate for bringing to power the False Prophet imminently. Trump chose general Mattis as the chief of his Defense ministry, and the Italian Mattis surname, suspect with Mattathias, father of all Maccabees, comes up as "Massi" too while sharing the white-and-blue checks of Scottish Stewarts.
I'm not yet at my main points. Some things need to be repeated first. Welsh Mattis'/Matthews ("fyn") were first found beside the first Fiens/Fane's/VANS, and use a "FYN" motto term as code for that surname. Maceys, known to be from Ferte-Mace, use a mace symbol, the symbol of Maccabees, as well as sharing the gauntlet glove with Fiens/Fane's/Vans. The latter are from Lake Van, location of an ancient Mus area that I lump with Meshech liners (also called "Mushki" and similar terms). This now gets to my point, that "Mus" should be the same entity as named Mosul, a city in Iraq that is constantly emphasized by me as the launching pad of the anti-Christ's short but brutal mission to bring the world to Armageddon.
The reason that Muksus was brought up is that he was more-popularly known as MOPSus, while Mosul, or a location next to it, went by another name anciently, MEPSila (may not be easy to find online, but I did find this claim at Wikipedia's Mosul article). My extrapolation is that Mosul elements of the Mepsila kind invented the Mopsus cult, and therefore were at Mokissos (Halys river). To put it another way, Mepsila elements joined to Meshech elements that named Mosul were at Mokissos, and there a false-prophet cult of Muksus was named after this entity.
Mokissos is not far from the Moschi mountains (southern Caucasia) so that it's possible for there to have been a Mokissos-Moschi equation (someone reversed the consonants from "Moschi" to get Mokiss"). I don't know whether "Muksus" came before "Mopsus," or vice versa, but it's more than merely interesting that Mopsus was largely a cult of ancient Clarus (western Anatolia) while the Claro line to Scottish Sinclairs were at Lothian's ROSlin, a term well-reflecting the Rosh entity that Ezekiel lumps in with Gog and Meshech. Furthermore, the Halys river was home to the Hatti, depicted in myth by the Phrygian sun god, Atti/Attys, whose symbol was the pine tree, a symbol used by the Lothian surname.
We can guess that elements from Varangian Rus named Roslin, noting too that ROStock is a city on the WARNow river of the Varni. There is a question on whether the ROOSTer in the Sinclair Crest has to do with the naming of ROSTock, but see also that Roosts/Rusts can be using a saltire version of the Sinclair cross.
The webpage below gives symbolism descriptions for 99.9 percent of the Coat of Arms at houseofnames.com. When loading the Lothian surname into the box, we find its description: "A silver shield, on a green mount in base a green PINE tree with a talbot proper tied to it, and a hunting-HORN in the BRANCHES garnished gold stringed blue, all within a green BORDER." There are several codes there for other surnames that Lothians were connected to. I claim that the Branch surname is a branch of "Avranches." This term is like "Avaran," the name of an ancient Maccabee proper.
He was Avaran HACHORANi Maccabee, whom I trace to the ACORN surname beloved by the acorns in the Dutch Tromp surname. The Mecklenburg Trumps themselves come up as "Tromp." The Avaran name is traceable to the Haveran version of Hearne's (first found in County Clare), and they share the Coat of Horns/Orne's, explaining why Lothians place a hunting-HORN in the BRANCHES. The Orne area of Normandy goes down to the Bessin, the known origin of the first Meschin. The Bessin was named by the Bessi priests (pagan stupids) that lived in the upper Hebros river (Thrace) along with the Serdi. I trace Serdi to the Sword surname which happens to share the white-on-red swords of Borders, explaining why Lothians use a border.
Moreover, the Hearne's are said to have been a variation of the bloodline specifically at Waterford, and this Arms of Waterford shares the stag head of Trumps/Tromps. This is a way to glean that Maccabees were rooted in Mokissos elements. The Haverans/Hearne's use an "ardua" motto term, which brings me to the Ardon river of Caucasia's Alania. We assume that the Alans of Dol originated at ancient Alania, and, indeed, the Haveran Crest has virtually the same pelican design as the Crest of Scottish Stewarts. The "VIREscit" motto term of these Stewarts is part-code for the Vire river flowing between the Bessin and Manche, the latter being the Normandy home of Masseys/Maceys as well as the location of ancient Alauna.
Caucasia's Alania was the location of the Terek river that I say (with good evidence) named Star Trek. The original Star Trek had many codes in the names of its characters and other items, which is typical of Masonic goons with cherished bloodlines / origins on the brain. For example, the captain of Star Trek was Kirk, and the Kirk surname uses a reflection of the Border Coat. Kirks were first found in the same area as the first Roddens, and while the latter use a bend in the colors of the bend-wide sword of Kirks, Star Trek was founded by Gene RODDENbury. The Rodden bend is shared by STEPHENsons (same place as Roddens) while STEPHANTSminda is a location on/off the Terek river.
Understandably, people in high levels of power are actually concerned about which ancient bloodline gets to rule the planet today or in the near future. Royals and nobles throughout history have been known to favor certain bloodlines, their own, no surprise, but when we give this situation over to silly satanists, they love to name everything after their own bloodlines as though this magically empowers them (it's one example of their silliness). They think that by doing favors to satan, the latter will return favors. And this is why the globe is being seized by utter stupids; there is no better term to describe them.
The fact would eventually come out that the producer(s) of Star Trek wanted to murder God, the Creator. They had a movie where Dr. Spock actually killed God, portrayed as an insane alien in some vast part of the cosmos. When Jesus was arrested with trumped-up, false charges, he was brought to a court session, in the middle of the night, at the home of the former chief priest, Ananus, otherwise called Annas. The Annas surname happens to use a Coat in good reflection of the Kirk Coat.
While Joseph CAIAPHAS, the acting Levite chief priest at the time, had married a daughter of Annas, the French CHAPPES surname shares a sold chevron in the white-on-blue colors of the solid Stephen chevron. If that's not enough, the French Chappes' were first found in the same place as French Levi's, the latter using a motto term as code for the Aids/Ade's that use a version of the Stephenson bend with leopard faces. But there is more, for Scottish Chappes' were first found in the same place, at or on the Allan river of Stirlingshire, as Nimo's/Nimoys, that being the surname of Leonard Nimoy, the actor who played Dr. Spock.
I can gather that Alan Huns of Alania were in cahoots with the ancient namers of Mosul, and that the Alan-Moschi merger of that thing must come around to fulfill Armageddon unto the pleasure of God to utterly wipe this horrid pest off of the planet. There is a Mopps/Mopperly surname listed with Moberleys, first found in the same place as Masseys and Maceys, and sharing the red fesse with English Alans. In the Mopps/Moberley Crest, someone (could imply an Amazon warrior) holds a white sword, symbol also of Mokissos-suspect English Mochs/Muchais', thus indicating the Mopsus-Muksus bloodline. Ancient Amazons were the Meshech of the Moschi area but removed to the Clarus theater.
Scottish Mochs use one fesse in the color of the one Alan fesse, and in both colors of the two Mopps/Moberley fesses. The latter's Coat is linkable by it's red canton square to the same of proto-Washington Wassa's while Washingtons share the three stars in Chief of Scottish Mochs. Wassa's are also Gace's while there is a Gace location in the area of Normandy that Talbots originated in, and the first Meschin married Lucy Taillebois.
There is a lot more I can say in the way of surname connections to the entities thus-far addressed. But I don't want to go much further. The small bit presented here is sufficient to make a case for a Gog-Meshech line through the Maccabee king-priests of Israel who set up the false-prophet Sadducees to which Caiaphas and Annas belonged. Later, the same Meshech line would find the American military for use in a staunch but stupid quest for globalism at everyone's deep expense. It can be gleaned that Mascals (same place as (Saddocks) are using the escutcheon of Sadducee-like Saddocks in colors reversed.
The Muscel variation of Mussels can apply to Mascals, and this line obviously named Lothian's Musselburgh, a location within Chad-like Haddington where Keiths/Mascals were first found. Chads (pine-symbolized Hatti liners?) are expected in the naming of Saddock-branch Chaddocks and Chadwicks, both from Lancashire, where Washingtons were first found. It's probably not a coincidence that Hatts use the Tatton quadrants, in Chad colors. The Chads (same place as Keaton-branch Chats/Ketts/Keats) are probably the first to use the potent cross, which became the symbol of Templar Jerusalem, an indication that the Templars were from Sadducees.
Keatings/Keatys use a motto term, "FidelissiMUS," and share the red-on-white saltire with Tailbois' (same place as Lucy Taillebois), and meanwhile the three Keat cats in pale are colors reversed from the three Tail/Tailor lions in pale. To top it off, the Tail lions are in the tails of Corks while MUSkerry is at Ireland's Cork, in the area that Strongbow Clare conquered Ireland (recalls that Claro's=Sinclairs of Lothian, near Haddington). It doesn't appear that the Chives surname uses cats, in Taylor-lion colors, as merely a coincidence, or that the Shewas variation of Chives' is like "Shaw" (and "Sava") while the Italian branch of Shaws/Sheaves' list "Chiava/Chiapponi."
It's online that the first Templar grand master (de Payens) married Elizabeth Chappes and/or Catherine Sinclair. Thus, the Templars (excellent example of faking Christians) were from the killer(s) of Jesus, and as such are expected to have formed the Illuminati. They say that international bankers had their start with the Templar bankers. This is the backdrop of historical Christianity as it veered away from Jesus to world-loving clowns of a satanic stripe within Vaticanism, the husband of the first Templars. Together, they killed Jews and conquered Jerusalem for themselves, and afterward they together persecuted true Christians. I have no better word for a pope than a clown, a Christian pretender dressed in a clown's outfit.
As the Liss surname is apparently in the "FideLISSimus" motto term of Keatings, it's notable that Keatings share the red boar with Less'/Luss'/Losh's, and that the Liss'/Lise's use six pale bars in blue-and-white that reflect the three blue-on-white pale bars of ArmSTRONGs, in case Strongbow Clare was named such as an Armstrong liner. Two pale bars in the same colors are used by Chad-related Cedes'/Seats, suspect as a branch of Seatons, the latter first found in the Haddington area. I can glean that Liss' and Less' were from pagan Levites of Biblical Laish, explaining the LEAVES around the Keating saltire. These Levites are expected in the line to the Maccabee / Sadducee priesthood.
The same pagan Levites of Laish were traced to the Laevi Gauls on the Ticino/Tessin river (predated the Maccabees), which river has its start in the Ticino canton of Switzerland, a great reason to trace the Tecks/Tess'/Tease's, first found in Switzerland, to Laevi on the Ticino, for Tecks/Tess' use the Keating saltire in colors reversed, and both surnames use leaves! Excellent, but let's not forget the links between the Annas surname and the Tease's/Tighs/Tye's (both of Nottinghamshire).
On top of these things, "Laevi" is a term like "Laevillus," the latter being the name of a man who married Quadratilla, a part-Maccabee liner of the first century AD, and woman of the royals of CETIS (Cilicia), a place to which I trace "Chad / Cedes / Geddes / Keith." Cetis was also "Citis," a term buried in the motto of Caens, and while Caen is a location in the Bessin, the Bessi priests mentioned earlier were at ancient Lissae, explaining the "liss" term buried in the Keating/Keaty motto.
So, you see, the Laish Levites of the anti-Moses Hebrews trace through the Hebros area of the religious Bessi cult to the Laevi Gauls (suspect from the Galli on the Halys river), but also to Laevillus, himself now suspect as the grandson or great-grandson of Caiaphas. The latter's name is suspect as a variation of a Cavii peoples that lived as Lissae-suspect Lissus. The Lise variation of Liss' is the Lise variation of Lys', the latter first found in the same place (Ile de France) as Chappes', Levi's and Morencys. The latter share the Haddington-surname cross (though on a gold background), I assume.
It seems that God called me to teach these things as a backdrop to the coming transition between this world's rulers and the Kingdom of God on earth. The heraldic evidence is overwhelming for the things I've just underscored. It is all reliable, and I've only scratched the surface of all that can be added to prove the same scenarios. God has a final score for those who love Jesus, and the sound of applause at that time will be deafening. The job of the Illuminati is to thwart this final score, to make it not take place, another reason that the Illuminati is best described as a haunt of stupids not knowing what's good for them.
Self-destructive stupids all hoping for the mere fantasy of world rule. The lure is too much for them; they have given themselves over to it. And where does Donald Trump sit in this battle? Into what will he end up landing? I will let you know as it happens. I am following his decisions closely, and am not like his avid supporters who support him in everything he does. It is not a good news-media policy to support Trump in everything he does, and this is the way that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh operate, for example. They are political animals to be differentiated between men of truth. If you want to make truth your chief goal, you need not to spin every Trump action into a good one. You need to address where in his policies and decisions he could be in bed with the illuminatist whore. Or, you need to keep eyes open to decide whether he is wanting to become the chief whore.
The U.S. Senate has voted (this week) almost unanimously to increase sanctions against Russia, and this vote needs to be passed by Trump before it becomes law. This will ruin any hoped-for, good relations that Trump could have with Russia, and it's a 180-degree turn away from Trump's pre-election attitude with Russia. We can see exactly why Trump wants to distance himself from showing any friendliness toward Russia, and, in this matter, we can see that the Comey affair is in reality a victory for the deep state even while Trump has thus-far survived the Russia-collusion accusations. We may assess that the story was rifled down the throats of major-media watchers precisely to turn Trump away from engaging Putin. The deep state wins, Trump loses, if Trump signs the sanctions into law. It means that Trump either gave in, or that he faked his pre-election friendship with Russia.
Why would he fake friendship with Russia? Well, the Russians were giving him good media attention, and attacking Hillary vehemently. This Russian-press attitude spilled over to American readers, a thing that Trump gladly accepted, though that alone falls way short of collusion or anything unethical. But if Trump was merely playing Russia-friendly to increase Russia's political favors, that's unethical. That's a liar of sorts. And it doesn't promise anything to remove the Armageddon scenario...still building steam across the transition from Obama to Trump.
Even if the president vetoes the sanctions bill, the veto would be over-ridden due to the overwhelming Senate vote (97-2). However, we could watch the White-House reaction to this bill to get some indication on where Trump stands. If the president seems to be sincerely opposed to the sanctions, we need to ask why Republican senators voted as a bloc for the sanctions (Rand Paul was one of the two voting against sanctions). Should we view the entire Republican side of the senate as a deep-state tool? On the other hand, we can take the position that Republican senators voted as a bloc because they were informed that the president definitely wanted the sanctions. That's what it looks like. If it were otherwise, we could expect half the Republicans to vote with Trump against the sanctions, and half to vote in favor of the get-Russia deep state. But that's not what we have.
The Senate vote suggests that Trump has decided to oppose Russia, even as the president's bombing of the Syrians tells the same story. Putin needs to stop dreaming about friendship with Trump, and he's gearing his military for war against the United States. Brace yourself, for prophecy (Daniel 7) tends to indicate that Russia will fry Europe with nuclear heat. As the world now sits, the alternative is that the United States will bomb Europe. Which do you think is more logical?
There are a couple of indications in Daniel 7 that the anti-Christ will be of a non-European nation. First, end-time Rome will be set ablaze by the anti-Christ, and, secondly, this same character is said to be "different" than the previous Roman rulers even while he's portrayed as one of those rulers. There was a time (about a decade ago) when I was entertaining the development of a strong Europe-Russia alliance to the point where a Russian figurehead would be allowed, for a few years, to take the EU command center. But then NATO demolished the potential for Western union with Russia. Trump seemingly revived it during his election campaign, yet now I see it dwindling without hope of a Russian figurehead acting as the EU president.
There are a couple of possibilities over Trump's first or second term. One, the Europeans could become so disgusted with American / British tricks and policies that they will befriend Russia on their own initiatives for the purposes of having a trade partnership (the Revelation-17 partnership) while simultaneously removing the cold-war cloud now building thicker thanks to both the Brits and Americans. To kick off this partnership, and to show good will, Russia could demand a pro-Russia leader as the EU president (the dragon on which the Revelation whore rides). But, in the end, the basic suspicions, animosities, differences between the two empires ends with a Russian bombing of Europe.
I've recently read that the EU seeks to form its own military due to dissatisfaction with dependence on NATO (an American organ). This move was before Trump recently insulted the EU's NATO members. Trump came across as the arrogant NATO boss bullying the European members into submission, a thing that can create and fuel a schism between Europe and America...which can open the way for a Europe league with Russia, especially if Germany paves the way for such a thing.
Trump has weighed in, saying that Russia did hack the American election, but this is just an example of his going along with the reports that he's fed from Intelligence briefings. So far, I've seen no evidence that Russians hacked the election, yet this is now considered a fact across the media board. Is is being said that the 97-2 vote was largely an act of punishment against Russia for hacking the election, but I say that the Intelligence community fabricated the hacking charges specifically to promote the sanctions and the continuing wear-and-tear on Russia. If Trump doesn't play along with the briefings, the Intelligence communities could fabricate evidence that he was in collusion with Russia. In this picture, who really is the American leader? Not Trump.
Media are relaying the senate vote as a "rebuke" to Trump, or the going over his head with the decision. This may be a means to disguise the truth that Trump has himself decided for the sanctions. It plays better, this way, for keeping Republican voters on side with Trump (helps to give the impression that Trump is loyal to his pre-election stance).
Deep State Can Shoot American Congressmen and Syrians at the same Time
On Wednesday, another shooting in America, but when I heard a witness telling what happened, it started to seem like a faked event. In this one, a Republican congressman (Steve Scalise) was shot while out on a baseball field. The witness says that 50-60 shots rang out. If you haven't heard, see this page out immediately after the event:
The way to test whether this was a fake is by whether anyone caught video of the field or in the direction of the shooter. If it was a fake, they likely won't show the field with the Republican "dragging himself off the field." The one (Jeff Flake) whom I saw speaking that line soon changed the story (before 9:16 am) to "ran with a wounds to the dug-out." There is a big difference between "ran" and dragged" but I suppose that both can apply. In any case, this claim is fully contradicted, as we shall see.
The same witness says he was the first one out to Scalise, making him a chief suspect in the hoax. The page above was showing Fox news live (not doing so by the time you load it), and showed that there was at least one camera taking live shots of the field less than two hours after the shooting (around 7:15). This camera had the ability to get a close up of the second-base area, where Scalise was supposedly shot in the hip. Yet I have not see such a close-up, the logical thing to show.
If one stops to write while the live camera rolls, part of the camera shooting is missed, and there's no way to watch it over. Although I've left the camera shot a few times to write, I expect the camera to take a shot of second base, yet not once did it do so, as though the cameraman was told not to. There isn't even an unwritten rule that a media camera can't take a shot of the most-important crime scene, yet the camera did not stress that spot at all so far as I saw, a big red flag. They can't say that it's unethical to show blood on the news (we all saw the glaring Boston-Marathon blood).
Rod Wheeler came on at 9:37, making him a suspect. Rod Wheeler was the one who brought back to life the Seth-Rich murder a few weeks ago, and then suddenly went away portrayed in disgraced fashion. It was Fox news, ironically, that disgraced him, and here he is now appears on Fox as an possible part of this scam.
Republican Gary Palmer came on at/about 9:26 to act as a witness of the shooting, making him a suspect. No one was talking about the many people shot that we expect from 50-60 shots. Wheeler says that the shooter was shot before he had time to turn this into a massacre. This is untrue as stated, for even according to the storyline, the gunman had over three minutes to do damage. A faked event is less complicated when the number of people shot is reduced. Twenty-five members of congress were there according to the page above, which I loaded at about 8:30 am, about 80 minutes after the reported time of the first shot (7:09). If this was faked, then it's evidence that Congress is a large part of such hoaxes.
Bill Hemmer says that the scene was chaos, but I don't see any evidence of that in the camera shots. The camera (that is feeding Fox live) is slowly panning back and forth and not zooming in on any carnage whatsoever. Absolutely nothing. It is up to the fakers to release the pictures in a controlled way.
In the video below, Mo Brooks is on the phone with CNN telling his eye-witness story:
Once we got the all-clear, that the shooter was down, we ran out to second base where Steve Scalise, he had crawled out into the outfield, leaving a trail of blood. We started giving him some liquids [what?], umm, I put pressure on his wound on his hip, and Brad...fortunately he's a physician, he started doing what you need to do try to minimize the blood loss."
The same speaker then says that a helicopter landed in center field and took away the ones needing it most. From others, we heard that Scalise was airlifted to hospital. I'm not seeing anything from Brooks on the most-important thing, whether Scalise was talking, aching in pain, or unconscious. No one reported whether he was moving about while the 5-60 shots rang out, of lying still, or trying to get further away. One needs to assume that he laid there in the same spot, playing dead. It definitely means that Jeff Flake was lying when he said that Scalise ran / crawled to the dug-out? Yet, he couldn't have dreamed that claim up. It must have come from the plotters, wouldn't you agree? But why the contradiction? I'll come to a theory on this later.
In the video below, the same Jeff Flake (congressman) uses different words. Now it's "he had dragged himself, after he was shot, from near second base, about 10 or 15 yards into the field...he was laying motionless out there..." This is NOT what he said earlier!
Here's another way to know that this event was faked, in the videos below (take your pick, both roughly identical), which might be faking being on-site while the scaaary gun is going off, powerful-sounding (they could have added the sound track to the video). Near the end, people can be seen running out from the dug-out to the thingie on the field, and we are to assume that this is after the shooter is downed. The video ends without showing police because there were no officers there when they took the video. All we see at the end is a few people bending over at one spot in the baseball diamond, acting like they are gathered around Scalise, we may assume. Then the video ends. WHY? Did the cameraman have a business engagement to run to?
I have heard that the gunman started behind the fence, in the dug-out, and then came onto the field along the third-base line, where he was shot dead. This camera doesn't pick that up, however. It seems to be placed in such a position that the third-base line, between third base and home plate, is blocked from the viewer's sight. Coincidence?
The deep-state idiot behind the camera, trying to act like this is a reality, asks whether anyone has been talking to the guy lying down on the field? Meanwhile, the shots keep ringing out. Um, yeah, let's go talk to him. It's not the right question, is it? But his purpose is to make us believe people are fallen on the field. It's probably a couple of bags, not a person. The spot where the object is lying is the spot where the people are bending over at the end of the video. If there's no person lying there, neither is Scalise there. This video has many problems.
Why does the video end when only three people run into the field to help the man lying there? It can be seen that the first person out was Jeff Flake. But what about all the rest of the congressmen? Were they there at all? Probably not, for this was taped on another day, not the day of the practice. If all the other congressmen were there on the day of the practice, the cameraman would have continued shooting, for he had recorded one of the best videos of the decade, and would have wanted to get the rest of the story on tape too. The reason that we got no more than to the end of the shooting is because there was no baseball practice that morning.
The video was probably taken on another day, with gunshots and other sound effects added. The gun almost-always sounds as though its sound is aimed at the camera (for scaaarier, louder, more-reverberating effect), and maybe it was when the sound track was recorded. Near the start of the video, people can be seen out in the open, just standing. That's not correct. In the middle of the video, people can be seen around a car who do not look appropriately alarmed by the shooting. This scene was not the day of the shooting, not the day when the congressmen were at the practice.
At the start of the video, as the idiot pretends to be rolling around, making for an erratic picture, there are sound effects that cannot be his pants on the grass, or any other thing we can imagine if all he's doing is holding a phone as he moves from one spot to another. At 1:12, a jogger can be seen on the street in the background jogging toward the front of the baseball diamond, smack to where the shooter is. The plotters decided to air this video in this condition, anyway, because, from past experience, they know that the power of their media will over-ride small problems like this.
The idiot then speaks loud enough for the shooter to hear him, and someone responds like he's ringing out a line from a script.
Not many seconds after the one-minute mark, a man with baseball helmet runs almost-casually past the front of the camera, an unbelievable thing, for he's out in the open like a duck in a shooting gallery. In a real shooting, he would have been moving away from the diamond, becoming "smaller" (harder to hit) to the gunman's sight, but as this was a fabricated event, they wanted to give the video some effect by having a full-blown baseball player appear on camera.
Rand Paul was there, out at/by right field at the time. He says he was outside the field's fence, hiding behind a tree, and watching the bullets bounce off the track (on the ground). He says there were "at least 50 or 60 shots," the same two numbers in the interview with Jeff Flake. Did they count, or was this a script?
The idiot above is along the right side (first-base line) of the field too, and outside the fence too. We can spot the batting cage at times in front of the camera, and Rand Paul mentioned this batting cage. Therefore, Rand Paul claimed to be in the very area where the idiot's camera was shooting. Where's Mr. Paul's phone video? Doesn't he carry a phone? If the idiot and his fellow actors felt comfortable enough to talk to one another, Mr. Paul could have been taking video too. But he wasn't there on the day that the idiot was, was he?
Mr. Paul says he witnessed the right fielder climb a 20-foot fence "in about two seconds," and so we would like to know who this fielder was, whether he looks like he could climb a 20-foot fence at all. One expects that the shooter would have "loved" to shoot a man climbing a fence. How possibly could he have gotten away with such a climb? Only if he does it real fast, explaining the exaggerated two seconds. The idiot missed getting that guy on camera probably because there never was such a person.
Near the end of the same video, Scalise is shown on a stretcher, wheeled away to the helicopter, which is itself shown for a second or less on the field. But at the start of the stretcher scene, he's being pushed past what looks like a road sign. What? Mr. Paul himself says that Scalise was in mid-field. How possibly could there be any sign at all in midfield? This video verifies that it's a Yield sign.
After they've pushed him past the sign, they push him along a fence. But there is no fence in center field. It appears more as though he was off the field to begin with, matching the original story Jeff Flake, who said that Scalise ran (or dragged himself) to the dug-out.
Finally, while being loaded into a vehicle that I cannot identify as an ambulance versus a helicopter, he appears to be in midfield, but there is insufficient evidence of this. This stretcher ride (using as many as three different video clips) may have been taped on another day, as part of the fake job. It may not be Scalise in the stretcher, or it may be someone else with Scalise's face pasted on. Whoever it is, he's is wearing red baseball socks.
Usually, people are killed in a big way in massive shootings, but here, when involving Congress, NOBODY -- no, not one person -- was killed. However, according to Jack Sava, Scalise came into the hospital in critical condition with "death imminent." Jack Sava, who will be mentioned again below, is suspect in murdering Seth Rich. A way to justify the murder of Scalise is for Sava to claim that he was near death from the start.
I've never seen anything like the video below. It's the shorter version (2:42) of the above. I stopped it at 31 seconds to contemplate on the people standing around behind the shooter (why aren't they taking cover?), but the sound continued normally even though the visual was paused. How does that happen unless the audio was added to the visual???
Oops, the next day, the video above was gone, replaced by something else at that very URL.
At the 2:10 point of the idiot-video, there is a bright-yellow post going up to a big, yellow top-rail of a fence at the corner area of the field at the end of the first-base line. I've tried to spot this yellow when the video directly above (hopefully they won't change it again by the time you see it) shows the playing field in a zoom from about a quarter-mile away. I can't see any yellow post or fence rail.
Here is what happened after writing the paragraph above; it was about five minutes after telling you that the original idiot-video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrFO9oXsqM was replaced by another video (the one zooming in on the field). I went back to that video, but the page had disappeared, saying that it had timed out. So I hit the re-load button, and the original idiot-video came back to this page, just five minutes after it wasn't there. How does that happen? This time, the sound paused when the video's pause button was hit. They fixed it. I have no idea which video you'll get when you load that page.
The large building at the extreme left of the idiot-video is identical to the building that I saw in the zoom-in video, suggesting that the idiot video was taken at a much-different time, while the yellow post and fence rail was yet yellow. The zoom-in video was a news cast for the Scalise killing, which suggests that the yellow is not there at this present time. It's possible that faked events are acted out years before they are played out, in case needed. Or, they may be acted out in preparation for a faked event, then abandoned.
Some are saying that Scalise was brought to the same hospital that "took care" of Seth Rich. This can mean one of two things, one being that the hoax can go forward with the hospital chiefs winking all the way with Scalise, a fellow hoaxer. But this does not seem to be the case at all, thanks to Jack Sava's news conference. It has convinced me that Scalise was not a part of the hoax (not the best word to use). It appears that the hoax was to get Scalise killed, yet there are problems with that scenario too.
I'd like to get into more detail in the idiot-video before going back to Sava. There are 11 pistol shots of the same type in quick succession for eight seconds up until 4:03. Not one of them was the shooter's rifle. None of them took place at the same time to indicate more than one police shooter. At 4:04, there is one rifle shot from the gunman, followed by seven pistol shots (pretended to be the police) between 4:10 and 4:19. The shooting ends at 4:19, pretending to have downed the gunman with those last seven shots.
You can skip this long paragraph. I'm recording the shots fired in case a different scenario surfaces in youtube news. We know for certain that neighbors heard shots, even if the shots in this video were from another event (spliced in). The fakers would have provided shots on the day of the practice, but probably not as loud, and it's doubtful that the real shots match what we find recorded in this video. At the start, there's 4 quick rifle shots followed by a lull. It is to be assumed that the gunman fired some before these four. One needs to assume that the shooter is aiming for the body guards in a battle to the death. There are no more shots until five more rifle shots ring out between :25 and :35, followed immediately by three pistol shots before :39; one more pistol shot at :42, and another at :49. There were no rifle shots in return between :35 and :49. Sound effects then take over with a man shouting, "put the gun down." After silence, one pistol shot rings out at 1:08, followed by four rifle shots to 1:12, at which second another pistol shot is heard. Two rifle shots at 1:14-15 is followed by two pistol shots at 1:16. Silence until two more rifle shots at 1:27-28. The next shots are two from a pistol at 1:41, and one more pistol at 1:46, at which time the gunman is reportedly behind home plate. A single siren is first heard at about 2:00. Guns go silent at 1:46, until the rifle shoots once at 2:12; twice at 2:15; twice more at 2:20; and one more each at 2:23 and 2:25. The pistol then pipes up with one shot at 2:29, and one more at 2:33. At 2:51, the rifle is sounded, followed by a simultaneous rifle and pistol shot at 2:53. It really doesn't sound as though two men with pistols are firing. The siren goes off at 3:05, but if this is to pretend that the police car has arrived to the diamond, it's not loud enough for that. After 2:53, there's silence from the guns, until two of the loudest rifle shots go off at 3:26 followed immediately by two less-loud shots at 3:28 that do not sound like pistols. The next shot sounds like a pistol at 3:40, with the rifle again for one shot at 3:44. We are to believe that pistol shots beginning at 3:55 are the police engaging the gunman at close range.
In total, I count 30 rifle shots and 14 pistol shots up to the time (3:55) that the police engage with 19 shots, during which short time the rifle goes off only once.
Why does Daily Mail report: "They were shot by Hodgkinson as he let out over 100 rounds from his assault rifle." According to the video, he clearly did not let out much more than about 31 shots.
During the 11 shots by the police in quick succession (over eight seconds), a child walks out a building to a vehicle wholly oblivious to the shooting. Let's face it, no adult there would allow a child to walk out of the building at that time. It appears that the fakers provided this evidence against themselves. Why?
The report says that five people only were shot, two of them Capital-police agents. There was only one siren arriving to the spot, while there were reportedly two body guards at the practice from the start of the shooting. The ending is written to make heroes of the Capital police: "'Griner and Bailey [both Black, both 32 years old, could pass for a couple] rushed him, despite their own wounds,' reported CBS News, which added that a third heroic officer, Henry Cabrera, was also at the scene and shot at the gunman from behind a dugout." The implication is that Bailey and Griner were the body guards present from the start, the ones who took the 14 pistol shots over four minutes during which time the gunman took more than 30.
The implication in the quote above is that Cabrera arrived in the police car alone, and he took the last seven shots after the 4-minute mark. It's not easy to tell whether the 11 shots in eight seconds were Cabrera versus one or two of the Capital police.
By what coincidence was there a Capital police car so close (less than 3 miles) to the shooting? Capital police should not be mistaken for Washington police. Capital police cater specifically to congressional persons at Capital Hill. They cannot be very typically numerous.
The same article says: "Rep. Mike Bishop, R-Michigan, told 'CBS Evening News' anchor Scott Pelley that Griner and Bailey 'rushed onto the field as the congressmen and staffers fled.'" I didn't see anyone on the field, did you? But then the camera was positioned not to see the inner field. I did read the official story that the gunman was taken down on the third-base line. It could appear that Mr. Bishop is agreeing with that storyline because he has the Capital police rushing onto the field. However, the way he puts his words, the two Capital police rushed onto the field immediately, at/near the start of the shooting, while everyone else was in the act of taking cover. How stupid is it for trained police to RUSH to their deaths into open view in a baseball field, with the shooter meanwhile standing in the bleachers, or something comparable?
It's not heroic to go into the open when the lives of everyone depend on your survival. Congressman Bishop must either be lying with his "onto the field" report, or the real event on the day of the practice was different than what we see / hear in the video. Any congressman vouching for the faked storyline is part of the deep-state nutbars.
Here's the scenario in the first two minutes as the idiot-video would have us think: the gunman is trying to keep clear of two body guards, not in the open, but protected by some bullet-proof material. The guards are firing their pistols at him, keeping him at bay, and he ends up behind home plate at least several seconds before the 2-minute point of the video. We need to assume that "behind home plate" means, not where a backcatcher plays ball, but behind the fence from where the umpire stands. For, the gunman is not going to go into the open, in the area of the backcatcher, where nothing protects him from being shot.
Yet, that is exactly the scenario of the official storyline, that the gunman is out along the third-base line, fully in the open. That's ridiculously sloppy of the storytellers, but they can get away with anything with the power of the "respectable" media on their side. It fits Bishop's report that the guards went into the open to get the gunman in the open, yet this must have been early in the shooting on the actual day of the practice, which real shooting wasn't as long or dramatic as the idiot-video suggests. To put it another way, the video is a fake, but there was a real shooting the details of which are debatable, and camouflaged in confusion by the mix of video, related media reports based on fabrications, and media reports based on true eye-witness reports.
To bring us to puking, we find out that Griner, a woman, has a wife. Awe, president Trump gave the lesbian couple flowers at the hospital. "Both Griner and Bailey, according to numerous eyewitness reports, shot at the gunman before he could do more damage, both being injured as a result. Griner was shot in the ankle, but is recovering in the hospital, where she and her wife, Tiffany, were given a bouquet of white flowers by President Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, according to a White House pool report."
Look at this farce:
[The gunman-to-be] asked whether Republicans or Democrats were playing. When he learned Republicans were playing, he opened fire apparently indiscriminately, shooting multiple people and sending people scrambling for their lives. That’s when Griner, Bailey and Cabrera sprang into action.
It appears that the fakers wanted to demonize the Democrats and lend sympathy for Republicans. But why? In the meantime, one of the heroes is disguised as a married lesbian i.e. a leftist-liberal story if ever we saw one. The FBI is telling the world that the gunman had a hit-list in his pocket of the most-Conservative members, but I think that the gunman wouldn't have the hit-list in his pocket the day of the shooting. That's more like a false FBI script.
One way to cover for an FBI murder of Scalise is to coax a Democrat to do the shooting. Another way is to have a faked shooter shooting blanks, and four others faking injuries as part of the hoax. It seems much easier and straight-forward to use an actor as the shooter than to convince one to do an actual shooting out of hatred for Republicans. In the meantime, while the actor is shooting blanks (or real bullets possibly), there is an FBI man (paid assassin) present who shoots Scalise. The problem with this scenario is that Scalise was shot only once. If the object was to kill him, why not shoot him more than once?
There are multiple reports that Scalise is in the same hospital as where Seth Rich was murdered after he was shot non-fatally. There was a question on why Seth was left to live after being shot, and one answer is that the Democrats wanted to get him into the hospital for to have a little chat with him, get out some information on his Wikileaks leaks, before killing him. The same can be true for Scalise, for he's been involved in an agenda that some FBI goons may wish to protect.
The video below takes the position that the Washington hospital is trying to kill Scalise. It reports that while Scalise was cheerful when entering the hospital, and prior to his operation, his condition has been downed to "critical." I have seen the critical word myself in news reports. Forgive the computerized voice in this video of over 20 minutes long:
Scalise was announcing his plan to go after child-sex traffickers. This is online to see. The hospital itself reported that he was hit only once. And we need to trust this because Scalise's family will have custody of the body should he die from this point.
The most-amazing report about this is the fantastic claim that Trump sent his own doctor(s) to the hospital to take care of Scalise. On the pro-Trump side, this is claimed as indication that Trump is trying to protect Scalise from Jack Sava, the hospital's surgery chief. Sava's wife/girlfriend is part of the Podesta / Hillary's circle, you see, the ones accused of child-sex trafficking, and the ones accused of killing Seth Rich. It was a bombshell when, just a few weeks ago, someone discovered Jack Sava's ties to Podesta. And here in the video below Jack Sava is the one doing the news conference concerning the condition of Scalise:
If you watched the video, you can see Sava intent on making Scalise nearly dead already. He's saying that Scalise could yet die due to complications, an infection, blah-blah. He is unwilling to say that Scalise will live. He's willing only to say that Scalise's condition has improved over the past few days to the point of being able to communicate with doctors and family. Sava says that Scalise will be in the hospital for weeks, meaning they have that long to torment him, or in other ways to make him talk.
Now, the problem is obvious if you're an avid Trump supporter. The onus is on Trump, not to send in his own doctors, who could be the killers, but to remove Scalise from that hospital altogether. It's impossible for the Trump team not to have gotten word of Jack Sava's presence in the Seth-Rich death. Trump could be merely making a good show of things to send in his own doctors, to make his supporters believe that he's trying to save Scalise.
Sava's news conference convinces me that this is a political murder. However, on second thought, the question needs to be asked again how it can be the case that Scalise ended up in Sava's care? Perhaps it wasn't by design of the killers. Perhaps the killer thought that one bullet was sufficient, thinking he got Scalise in the chest. If it seems self-inflicting / risky for the killers to send Scalise to same hospital as Seth Rich, the alternative is that God arranged for Scalise to live so that he would be brought to Sava's hospital. In this way, the major media that refused to speak of Sava's involvement with Seth Rich can now be forced to focus on that involvement. Lord willing, this latest incident will break open the murder ring by some mis-steps on the killers' parts.
Here is Steve Scalise on May 25, in the middle of the Seth-Rich revival, putting out his own video in opposition to child-sex trafficking:
So, it seems that the lovers of child trafficking are willing to conduct a political murder in the very midst of a congressional move against child trafficking, believing that they can get away with it. They may be thinking that by doing this killing (or attempted killing), they can send a strong message (threat) to anyone who carries on with this program. This is American democracy at its finest at the "highest" levels. Okay, the killers have utterly condemned themselves, and we await Wrath upon them. Let us see what God will do to them.
If it appears that the shadow government or its affiliates can't keep control without murders, then obviously they have lost control and are in the throes of risking all with major crimes. The need to commit major crimes is not a symbol of strength, but of weaknesses, people at the brink of falling.
What Have Obama's Brothers Been Up To Globally?
Although Malik Obama does not look like president Obama, and while Malik looks much like his father, I've seen George Obama (Kenya) looking a lot like president Obama, though I'm not sure whether it's due to physical features versus mannerism. On the other hand, other videos of George Obama did not show similarities with the look of the president. If anything can convince me that the president's father was Obama Sr., it's George Obama.
The video below (by Michael Savage) is only 18 minutes long, and starts out by sharing a World-Net-Daily article on Malik Obama's support of the Muslim Brotherhood. I recall writing about this (2012, I think), where Malik was working with the Sudanese government:
The 18 minutes was not enough time to get into what's needed, the evidence behind Shoebat's claims. He needs to get the evidence, one piece at a time, and make a convincing case. Otherwise, the story won't get traction. If Part 2 of the Part 1 above exists, it's not coming up by searching it at youtube. Read the red writing at the start of the next video:
If true that Malik Obama was/is the "Executive Secretary for the Islamic Da'wa Organization" (Sudan government), I would need to conclude that he either had a high position in Sudan before Barack Obama became the U.S. president, or that Barack got Malik elevated to high places in Sudan because the people behind Obama held sway in that God-forsaken country. If Malik was in his own right within the Sudanese government, it may explain why Obama feigned having Malik's father as his own, which assumes that Malik and Barack were working together on certain projects. Barack started to advertise Obama Sr. as his father in the 1990's, well before he knew that he would be the president. If I'm correct in saying that Obama Sr. was not his father, then one may theorize that Obama was, in the 1990's, linked to something that Sudan was linked to.
Next, see how Malik got his tax-exempt foundation in America, thanks obviously to Barack. This video goes on to show (in photos) Malik at a Da'wa event, and even gripping the hand of a Da'wa boss. As the event was in 2010, Barack's second year as president, it's a no-brainer that the Da'wa boss is shaking Malik's hand only for to have Malik cater some support from his presidential "brother." It should be clear here as to why Obama overthrew Egypt for to install the Muslim Brotherhood. We may assume that Malik played role in that.
Many onlookers have questioned whether Malik Obama is even eligible to vote in the United States, as he lives in, and has run for government office in, Kenya. But according to the Post, Malik is a frequent visitor to the U.S. and is registered to vote in Maryland:
Obama plans to trek back to the US to vote for Trump in November. Obama used to live in Maryland, where he worked for many years as an accountant and is registered to vote there, public records show.
Snopes lays this out, but doesn't comment any further on the man, nor tell when he was a Maryland accountant. He doesn't seem very poor if he can make the trip to the U.S. just to vote in a country not his own. We can ask whether he made the trip for some other reason, disguising it as a trip for Trump support, because Obama was ratcheting up his Africa monies at that late time in Barack's presidency. I suppose that it was safer for Obama to give Malik money in the U.S. with the latter transferring it to overseas than for the president to do so personally.
Malik named it the Barach H Obama Foundation. The Obama circle of Brotherhood people may have been solicited to give to this foundation. Here's are reasons to be suspect of it:
Just look at how immediately this foundation was proclaimed by Malik from the time that Obama won the election in November of 2008:
From 2008-11 [November, 2008], BHOF operated illegally as a nonprofit group and falsely claimed tax-exempt status—for which it had not yet formally applied. The foundation finally submitted its 2010 application for nonprofit, tax-exempt status on May 23, 2011; seven days later, it submitted its filings for 2008 and 2009. Within just one month of these filings — on June 26, 2011—Lois Lerner, the senior official who headed the IRS's tax-exempt organizations office, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to BHOF...Moreover, Lerner broke with the norms of tax-exemption approval by making BHOF's tax-exempt status retroactive to December 2008.
Now we know why Lerner gave Malik the tax-exempt status retroactively, to protect Malik in his fraudulent claims. What kind of person do we envision Malik as he falsely proclaims a foundation that did not exist? What did president Obama do about this from the start? Nothing. But in 2011, the president was in cahoots with Lerner's actions...though Democrats would have us believe that the president knew nothing about what she was doing. Do we really think that Lerner would commit such compromising acts concerning the president's brother without first consulting with the president? Wasn't it clear that Lerner's persecution of the Tea Party was a program from Obama himself?
After the president did this for Malik, do we really think that Malik would shame the president by not only openly proclaiming that he made a special trip to the U.S. to vote for Trump, but by openly crying the blues about Obama's cheapness in not sending money to his Kenyan causes, or for not raising Malik to share some of Obama's fame, etc.? That's more of what a child does, not a grown man. I see tricks here, where in real fact Obama was transferring plenty of money to Malik, with the two having a working relationship up to the point that Malik toured some media telling how bad the president has treated him. Malik was on Sean Hannity telling the same. If anything, Obama was upset with Malik for screwing-up some part of the agenda, influenced perhaps by his lust for being politically renown on Obama's coat tails.
I think I can understand why God gave me/us the Obama dream, because this anti-Christ movement lives on in the Middle East. God seems to be telling us that he's concerned exactly with an anti-Israeli movement that Obama has probably funded. To put it another way, Obama was able to stash diverted U.S. war and other tax moneys, for as-yet future activities of anti-Israeli militants.
We saw that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was put down, and that Obama was disgraced in Libya, but Obama thereafter got himself four more years as president, becoming more entrenched in the White House, and learning more on diverting money to terrorism. While Obama could not contribute much for the cause, in the ordinary / legal way, due to the Americans standing in his way, the "best" thing he could do was to seize American money and divert it, for another day, for use by overseas groups. But even his beloved ISIS received a trouncing in his final years. And Israel is stronger today than when Obama was starting out. We recall the entire world of Obama-loving stupids ganging up on Israel in favor of Hamas in Gaza. It was such a twisted time. Obama never did make a come-back in threatening Israel, and he failed to dislodge Netanyahu. Here's from the time after the Muslim Brotherhood lost power in Egypt:
The former Chancellor of the Constitutional Court of Egypt and current adviser, Tahani Al-Jebali stated that the reason the United States cannot fight the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood is because the brother [Malik] of U.S. President Barack Obama is the architect of the investments for the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood.
“We will carry out the law and the Americans will not stop us. We need to open the files and begin court sessions. The Obama administration cannot stop us; they know that they supported terrorism. We will open the files so these nations are exposed, to show how they collaborated with them [the terrorists]. It is for this reason why the American administration fights us.”
Pretty strong words. It should be said that the Muslim Brotherhood is not ISIS, and that even though Obama was giving Brotherhood agents inside the U.S. special powers, they did not conduct terror acts inside the country. The reason could be as simple as to keep the Obama-Brotherhood secret, not risking it in a terror act (that could go wrong).
Someone at the page above posts: "In order for obama to have pulled all of this off, he would have to had stolen a hell of a lot of money. Well we all know he has. This further explains the moneys gone missing in such places as Afghanistan and Iraq that were meant for those countries, we're talking billions of dollars! This is one way of explaining how obama is funding all of this! Not to mention stealing directly from tax payers in this country!" This is what I think the dream pertains to, that Obama is not finished in his work. To some extent, God could be giving him successes because, ultimately, it is God's will to bring the anti-Christ to Israel.
Let me assume that Obama's employee in the dream was Malik (not at all Barack's brother), and that they had a real falling out when things didn't go so well for Barack on the Africa stage. Obama's Brotherhood program in Africa started like a fantastic shooting star, but quickly went out in dismal failure. We may assume that Barack blamed Malik; after all, Barack never blames himself, being a perfect human specimen, after all, in his own eyes. And so I'll assume that the president chose to work closely with his real brother, Mark, as the dream may be implying. I will assume that the brothers are working in unison right now, as the dream seems to imply. Might we assume that China's government is involved with Mark, and therefore with Obama?
There is the mystery on why the two identical men were going up a circular ramp while on their skateboards. They were both up a quarter-circle-shaped ramp. There was nothing more to that scene; they did not come down the ramp. They started at the bottom of the ramp, and went up, the two of them together both wearing the same clothes, both exact copies of one another in every way, both going up at the same time. Why was this ramp a part of the vision as opposed to some other item used in skateboarding? Why weren't they skateboarding on a flat street or sidewalk if the only important part was to indicate the Sheet/Skate, Suit/SUTER and Board surnames?
Again, Obama's mother had married Lolo SOETORo of Indonesia, directly south of China. It's not a stretch that Mark "Obama" was a son of Soetoro with the president's mother, thus explaining why Mark ended up living in China. We don't expect a Kenyan in China, however. In the same way that Ann Dunham gave the president-to-be over to Barack Obama Sr. for to act as the real father, Ann may have done the same with Mark. This is an alternative way to explain why Mark and the president have similar facial features. Lolo's daughter (Maya) with Ann Dunham also married Chinese.
There are problems to overcome with the theory that Mark was Soetoro's son, but for the moment, I don't know how else to explain that Suters were indicated twice in the dream. The skateboard scene was immediately after Obama danced, an item that I can't explain except to suggest indication of the Dunham surname. So, the idea of the two men being presented in suits immediately after the dance can indicate that one of the two on a skateboard was born Mark Soetoro. The item immediately before the dance was my sewering a paper airplane on Obama's billiard table.
Or, on second thought, the brothers were somehow involved with Soetoro but not born from him. In fact, one way was for Mark to have been a son of Frank Davis at the time that Ann met Soetoro, explaining why Mark was shipped down to Kenya (Soetoro didn't want him)...though I don't know the real details of Mark's time in Kenya; he may have fabricated most of them. "Soetoro and Dunham met at the East-West Center while both were students at the University of Hawaii. Soetoro and Dunham married in Hawaii on 15 March 1965." Mark was born around that time, but see Wikipedia's article on "Family of Barack Obama" having Mark birth on no specific date, but curiously in "c. 1965". The 'c' is defined as "approximately / around," and is used when the specific date in unknown.
If Mark was Frank's son, he becomes potentially a full brother of the president.
When first with Ann, Lolo worked for the Indonesian government, though not in a political capacity. His Wikipedia article pits the same government with Lolo's job for an oil company with headquarters in Los Angeles county.
Next, we come to a video telling that five Chinese warships were off of Alaska when Obama was up there. No one feared a serious war from China until Obama made CHANGE in the United States. I didn't watch past the first few minutes as I think the video owner (AMTV) didn't have more to add to the initial question of whether president Obysmal was secretly meeting with Chinese military officials in China.
There is a headline: " FLASHBACK: Obama Credits 1965 Selma March for Inspiring His Birth… In 1961" The headline's implication is that Obama lied when tying the 1965 march to the marriage of his mother to Obama Sr years earlier (Obama claims to be born in August of 1961). The article adds: "...Obama credited the 1965 marchers with empowering his black father and white mother to marry..." However, if Obama was not lying, it puts his birth around 1965, same time as Mark's. Were they twins?
Jerome Corsi of WND didn't think that Frank Davis could be Obama's father when he first investigated Obama's birth-certificate scandal. This story was too sensational or explosive at that time, able to damage the reputation of WND. Corsi has since gone to Infowars, and I'm now hearing that he is entertaining Frank Davis as the real father. In any case, Corsi's article below makes an impressive case that Ann Dunham was NOT married to Obama in May of 1962. Corsi shows a hand-written letter from Obama, in that year, where he asks for Kenyan help to help support his "wife" in Kenya. Moreover, Corsi shows Obama Sr. in a photo without a wedding band on his ring finger. Corsi: "But there is no indication by Obama that any time was spent in Hawaii or elsewhere with his wife Dunham or son Barack Obama Jr."
While seeking more on Obama's brothers, I happened upon the short video below where Obama is actually trying to rebuke the Kenyan government for not addressing gay rights. Obama the dirty scum in an expensive suit, calling faggotry "love". American liberalism wants to export Obama-brand mentality everywhere, and his irony is: not even Muslims accept queers. Why does anyone deserve special recognition just because he penetrates into someone's filthy anus? The Kenyan president told Obama, point-blank, that his people don't want to recognize such "rights." There is more hope for Kenya on the Day of Judgment than for America.
I seem to have exhausted my findings on Malik and Mark Obama.
Video's I Find Worthy of Note
I've just come across an excellent video on pizzagate, and, to my great surprise, it's by CBS. Until now, I have not understood the collective evidence against the Comet pizzeria. See this (no pictures of child porn, etc):
The next video has demonic, derogatory language, where a disgusting faggot "performer" at Comet pizza speaks on killing infants, no kidding at all. However, the video is an attack on big media for not covering this thing. Ultimately, these type of things can be from an act / decree of God to leak such atrocities at the feet of media in order to make media people stand up and rebel against their decrepit bosses (who essentially play weakling-puppet to the dark world):
I've avoided queer and child porn to date because I don't want the images in my head, but it gets worse on this pizzagate topic, into eating sex organs, for example. It's my warning to you not to delve into this at youtube when it starts to get too rotten. Just stay away from it. God will look after these animals. In the same way that they want to desensitize you on faggotry, ditto with child sex. They want it to become ho-hum, constantly in the news until we except its presence as "love."
Just when you think it can't get worse, I'm now hearing that the founder of Paypal is injecting himself with the blood of children in efforts to live longer. They say that experiments prove longer and healthier life by this method. But where will all the rich get children's blood? Like I said, just when you think it can't get worse. This happens only amongst people who believe in Evolution as the creator of the universe.
Here's Trump's campaign manager, Tim Nolan, arrested for child-sex trafficking:
David Vose, a super example of an apostate-like shooting star retaining his Christian mask. This is all new to me right here. He, a Trump supporter, says that Old-Testament Jehovah is the god of this world = satan rather than the Creator. I've heard this idea from Freemasons. Vose comes off as a Christian in his videos. In the video below, which is the first I've seen his face, he starts out by indicating a severe problem that he's had with the Old-Testament Law. He expresses confusion, and reveals that he's come down on God. The temptation to do the same can affect everyone of us if we listen to demonic influences. David has the same questions that many sincere believers in Jesus have concerning God's choice for animal sacrifices as a runner-up to the Sacrifice of the lamb. The difference is in how we all conclude the issue.
David starts off by asking why the Law was put into place if it was later to be done away with. The fact is, the Law was not done away with; only the animal sacrifices were canceled for obvious reason. To many people, it is problematic that God would instill animal sacrifices, the very type of thing practiced by pagans beforehand. One could get the impression that the Israelite religion was merely a form of paganism, but with a newly-invented god. The problem with this view is that there is no other human voice in all of history through which the true Creator spoke, if He wasn't speaking through Moses. And there is a Creator, this we trust with much all of our senses and intellect. Where is the Creator if he's not the God of Moses? For thinking Christians (most of us do think hard), there is no other acceptable God in any other religion.
I suppose that God permitted Israel to continue with animal sacrifices because it happened to play into Jesus perfectly. Vose tends to acknowledge this, yet he's not happy with it. There are bothersome questions, and they've been eating away at him. He appears to be implying that God was cruel for sending the Israelites to slaughter the people in the Promised Land. I can certainly understand this point of view, as it's a natural tendency for humans to entertain it. But there is the other side of the coin. The more we view the Canaanites as normal, the more God appears cruel, but if the Canaanites were like the people ruling over America today, we can all agree that God is good for wiping them out without pity. There is nothing difficult to understand about the choking-weed versus the struggling-wheat scenario.
At the 32-second point, where he chokes up a little, one can see the struggle that took place in David's past. In my opinion, at the 45-second mark, he seems to show that he's not at all sure that the Old Testament was a product of the true God. How a sincere Christian answers this question can easily destroy one. It appears that David's problems with his views of the Old Testament has brought him to the point of viewing the Old-Testament God wholesale as Satan, or a demonic spirituality dressed as the Creator. This is snaky, and David needs to wipe these ideas out.
The Biblical evidence is vastly opposed to the Israelites carrying a dark spirituality that invented a corrupt form of the Creator. Had the prophets been of demoniac spirits, they wouldn't have stressed goodness / justice / uprightness / cleanliness in all of its forms. On top of these matters, there are those today seeking to undermine the validity of the New Testament too. We were warned about this by Jesus, and we generally know that such ideas come from those who practice hatred of God. Masons know that we will not listen to atheists and others who despise the very concept of God, and so we should expect Masons to advance "Christians" who set themselves against us, trying to convince us that there are problems even with the New-Testament scenario.
For all we know, many Trump supporters claiming to be Christians may have been chosen by a certain dark group to start youtube "ministries" purely to make Christians support the Trump agenda, and meanwhile to bring viewers to a rotten / destructive / empty-headed view of God. If we care about the now, we may become Lot's wife. The end times is not the time to care about the now. The end times is given to sinners, the neo-Canaanites. The end times is also a test on Christians, to check them for loyalty toward God versus betrayal in return for comfort with the now.
Modern rulers, who include key parts of the Trump administration, would have us believe, in a trick, that they are good people. There is nothing more complicated or amazing about this than a trick. It's just a trick. World-loving politicians know from the start that their dark sides (rejection of God, twisted views of God) need to be covered with the trick of looking Godly, ethical. There is nothing hard to understand about the wolf-in-sheep's clothing scenario.
At the 1:25 point of the video, which is before Vose comes out and calls Jehovah the devil, he brings up the saying of Jesus that the god of the Jews is the devil. No one, at this early point in the video, would think that Vose incorrectly interprets Jesus on that thing. Jesus is saying that, because they reject Him, the Jews are not of the true God, and because they love money, the now, and even want to kill Him, the Jews are of the devil. Jesus is NOT saying that the Old-Testament God of the Jews is the devil. Mr. Vose, straighten out. Demons have got hold of your thinking patterns, and they will have power over you until you block such ideas out.
The title of the video, "THE TRUTH About the BIGGEST LIE ever TOLD," is a claim that the core of the Old Testament is a lie. While I will entertain parts of the Old Testament as non-Inspired, not necessarily meaning that these parts are in error, I do not oppose the core of the Old Testament, the Law of Moses, for if I did, then I would need to reject Jesus as the authentic Son of God, for Jesus claimed the Law of Moses for his own. If Vose can convince Christians that the Law of Moses was a sham, he indirectly undermines their faith in Jesus.
Salvation is from the Law of Moses, Jesus said. The apostle Paul did not ever eradicate the Law of Moses; he only pointed out that Temple-related ceremonies, etc, were no longer Desired because Jesus was their fulfillment. The new Way was to receive forgiveness of sins by devotion to Jesus. The animal sacrifices to which God called Israelites on two month annually (once every six months) served as a reminder that the shedding of blood was necessary for the forgiveness of sins, even though the death of animals could not forgive sins. It's not hard to grasp. Blood in death was needed to forgive sins, and Jesus was all about this very theme even in Old-Testament times.
I have decided to follow Jesus. But I can decide not to follow him anymore. This is the test in the end times. We have an ever-growing list of items foisted upon us that serve as reasons to no longer follow Jesus. David Vose has entertained thoughts from demons, and he's floundered as a result. We pray that there is hope for his full recovery.
Just before the 2-minute mark, Mr. Vose shows frustration in God's veiling Jesus throughout Old-Testament times. Why did it need to come to humanity in that form, he asks? Well, it was part of God's trick on Caiaphas. And by the way, I view the Vose surname, which is in the motto of Walerans, as part of the Vaux bloodline that I trace to Caiaphas. God's trick was to have the high priest of Israel (Joseph Caiaphas) offer the Lamb up to death on a Passover, and, obviously, God could not reveal this in Old-Testament times because it would have spoiled the plan.
From this perspective, we can see also why the prophets are on the thin side for their evidence that Jesus was the messiah, for had the prophets made it absolutely plain, Caiaphas' fellows would not have agreed to offer Jesus up to death. But when the time came, the Jews all shouted, "Crucify him," for they were convinced that he was satanic, a magician, an imposter, or a lover of Beelzebub. And that "trick" from God got mankind the opportunity to be saved from the Coming Judgment, a good thing, wouldn't you say?
Isaiah 52-53 speaks on the death of the Messiah for the sins of Israel, and later in 53, the same man is shown alive (resurrected) as the ruler of the entire earth. Shake in your boots, Freemasons, for your view of God is insufficient to prove your faith in Jesus.
When Christians are falling like flies all around, we can get the impression that Jesus is not really what we read in the New Testament, and, meanwhile, others clamor that the apostles invented Jesus as he's written out. But let's not be hasty. Believe in Isaiah 53, yet there are other Old-Testament scriptures that speak on his ministry. There is no lack of Christian writings on these matters, if anyone really wants to know. If you don't really want to know, then God really doesn't want to know you.
If you go through a long period where you are cool toward God, there is still a chance that you can regain your heat, if you keep on plugging away at the work to which we are all called: to fight the mental implantations of demons, and to keep a sincere love for Jesus in the midst of the weeds.
Vose says that "Joshua started murdering those people." The use of "murder" is very telling. He's feeling sorry for the Canaanites. What immediately follows from Vose, up to about the 3-minute mark, borders on blasphemy, though it's not altogether apparent what his true attitude is. He could be mocking God at this point. Yes, if we don't watch it, we can start to believe that the Old Testament is a bunch of crock, and it follows that, in our disappointment (because we had believed it to be truth for many years), we lash out at the God who is underlain in the Scriptures.
We can get mad at God for fooling us with crock when in fact He didn't intend to fool us. He needed to be vague in prophecy, and he expects us to understand the reasons for such a tack, because it's part of His battle against our enemies. We need to appreciate that some prophecies are granted at all, but, yes, they leave out some key things. His end-time enemies are not to know exactly how things will play out, or the enemy won't play them out that way.
To justify God's end-time "murder" of his enemies, he will allow them completely-free reign, and in the meantime God will record their dark deeds, and, moreover, it will all be exposed for the express purpose of justifying God's hand in Armageddon. The armies of the nations will be gathered to Israel, thinking that they will avoid a terrible fate, but, alas, it's another trick from God, a trap. There will be a trap for worldly Israel, the Israel intent on rejecting Jesus, and another trap for ALL the nations in the Middle East. Donald Trump has said that Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same God, but no one I define as a Christian would ever use such words. It's Masonic oneness, isn't it?
At the four-minute mark, Vose reveals that the story of Joshua wasn't literal at all, just a "spiritual story." By extension, the story of Moses wasn't literal either. A few seconds before the six-minute point, Vose reveals utter lunacy, saying that the "Most-High [God] divided up the world and appointed 70 gods over all the nations, and Israel's portion was Jehovah...Well what happened, Jehovah, he became proud." Thus, Vose enters into a form of blasphemy. His idea here, that the Most-High is a different person from Jehovah (or YHWH), smacks of Masonic views where the real high God was Lucifer.
So, there you have it, point-blank, that people calling themselves Christians on youtube social-media news can be imposters of an apostate kind. They will inevitably urge believers to focus on the now rather than on the Coming.
Vose then says, "We should all be the I Am. Jesus claimed to be the I Am." He thus reveals his view that Jesus and you are about equal. And he goes on to say that Jehovah was "the angel of our Father. But he fell. He became an accuser." Mr. Vose, dangerous. It all started when he fell from faith in the truthfulness of the Mosaic Law. He permitted it to go further, and God permitted his demons to go further, until Vose became utterly twisted. Vose can untwist the entire matter, IF he chooses to. The question is, will he choose to? Or, does he delight in his animosity against YHWH? Does Vose think he's better than YHWH?
In the 6th minute, Vose claims that satan in the story of Job was Jehovah. He seems sincerely to believe in the New Testament, but we need to ask whether this is part of his trick to convince viewers to take his Jehovah=satan theory seriously. And we can also ask whether Vose is a pioneer in coming out into the open with dark Masonic teachings for to spread them as a credible alternative to traditional Christian positions. Is this the coming-out of Masonic heresy? It cannot fool real Christians.
Can there be other Trump-supporting "Christians" on youtube news who have similar ideas? Are they all (or almost all) toting the martial-law scare? This scare has as a basic, underlying teaching that the powers are invincible; there's no use in trying to fight them. The same powers have been trying to trick the Russians into believing that their military is more powerful than it really is. The absolute perfection of smart bombs seen in the Iraq war may have been video tricks. These sorts of things may fall under the faked miracles we see in end-time prophecy.
One possible motive of faking this event is to deliberately start a civil war, but this is the extreme. In any grand move of the powers to take society control, the powers could use the assistance of the ruling political power. At this time, that is, they need the Republican voters, etc., to stand behind them. But, I'm not going to get into extremes over this event until things happen to justify it.
In the June-1-2017 video below, a man moves your favorite cereal around with a magnet, which to me indicates that cereals are packed with much-more iron than we need. Is this iron poisoning by design? Do the rich want us sick to make mega medical dollars on us? Another theory, they are adding weight to cereal to charge more money per box of cereal. The video shows that a magnet pulls metal shavings, easily visible to the eye, from a cereal slop. That means that cereal companies, not just one or two, are pouring literal metal into the food material that makes cereal. That is an incredible testament that the government is not protecting us, and that big corporations believe they can get away with this even of caught...because governments will turn a blind eye.
I've been very concerned lately about poisoned foods in our diet from deep-state fiends, and this video tends to confirm it. The producer (Mr. Eastcoastman) of the video above is risking his life, for he has other videos on questionable foods. He does pesticide tests. I've seen his video on unacceptable bottled water with far too much acidity. The goons wouldn't want to kill us right away when they can make a lot of medical money beforehand, and moreover they can get into the game of solving our developed illnesses by selling the cures or relievers of some of the symptoms.
In his video for testing fruits for skin wax, he found some organic apples with wax, meaning that the government isn't protecting the organic section in the supermarket. Unless companies are punished, and word goes out wide of their punishment, food manufacturers will continue to cross the lines, selling chemicalized foods as organic, and selling chemicalized foods with more chemicals than ever.
We can now ask what other foods have iron filings? Or other metals? Should we stop buying all food fortified with iron?
The next video shows that governments and law makers (yes Congress) don't care whether people get cancer from living at cell-phone towers. Not all people get cancer from cell-phone waves, but some do. The government is bending over backward to save ten Americans from terrorists, then allows hundreds of thousands to get sick or die by many examples of supporting fats cats through sloppiness, callousness, neglect, laziness, etc. in a great array of issues. In many cases, sheer wickedness is at the root of government operatives.
The video above speaks on cell-phone towers that are bunched up at one location, yet none register any bars of reception. The towers are not presently operating, in other words. It suggests that the towers are made ready for future use, but as they are bunched up (not normal for normal phone use), it could suggest special towers to be used by the military, etc., in a crisis situation, if the normal towers need to be shut off by the military, etc. That way, the military / CIA etc. can communicate with one another while the masses cannot. Such special communication abilities are to be expected knowing what we do about the deep state. The crisis may not be started by the deep state, but by their enemies. Republican voters appear to be going that route at this time.
Wow, a whole news reporter willing to lose all to speak out against CNN. If all reporters speak up at the same time, the media bosses can't persecute them all, or even a few of them, or things will spiral out of control for the goons, making things worse. Things are going in the direction where the brave are about to speak out massively, and this can benefit Christians under persecution to some degree. From what I see on youtube, there are some nasty and loyal Republicans willing to let their own bullets fly into the heads of deep-state suspects. This is where it's going with the shooting of Steve Scalise not much time after the murder of judge Scalia. Predictably, if things continue as they are, Republicans are going to turn the deep-state game against them, where they act the police, judge and executioner without due process. The Republicans will become the terrorists, and this is what the deep state has prepared for, not Muslim terrorists. We can predict Democrats on the streets joining the deep state, by the way things look now.
Here's the FBI wanting to be able to act the judge and executioner. In the middle of this video, we can see document evidence (apparently) that the deep state wants the right to be exactly like the murderous dictators they speak up against in the world:
By the way, when I share videos, try not to think that I support everything in them. I'll tolerate some bad attitudes or wrong info if there are things pertinent to messages I think are important or relevant. On the one hand, I don't want to frighten people as do the Alex Jones' of the world, yet I don't want to be blind to the reality that the deep state has prepared for martial law, if needed. I tend to believe that the deep state, when it comes right down to it, does not want marshal law, whereas the Alex Jones' claim that this is the deep state's very desire. In my opinion, martial law is a risky situation where the people have everything to gain, and the losers have everything to lose, a lot more to lose than the masses have to gain.
In the middle of this American crisis, a war between the super-powers looks imminent. I wonder whether the deep state wants a hyped-up skirmish with Russia to unite the political parties and thus reduce the heat on the deep state. In a war with Russia, the deep state will come out to look like the good big-brother that protects Americans from big-bad Russia. The uglier Russia can be portrayed prior to this skirmish, the better for making the deep state look important and appreciated. This is the worst thing I can think of, the masses turning a loving cheek to the shoulder of the wicked deep state, and it's exactly the sort of "worship" I see in Revelation 13.
You can't fault the bravery and morality of the speaker in the next video, who shows that judges are afraid to sentence police officers as they would sentence others. The morality problems with Western nations under Freemasonry start with the police brotherhoods and law-twisting lawyers who evolve into judges:
The next video speaks on canned, government news from the Bush government, though it apparently was nasty policy for other governments too. The canned news is a government "commercial" aired without the public knowing that it was canned by the government, and made to appear as though the media created the news. You get it, deep state in bed with media, the media not reporting for the people. George Bush is on trying to justify the canned "news" by saying that the government is under the gun of the justice department to relay honesty, and that as long as honesty pervades the canned "news," neither the government nor the media need to tell the viewers that the "news" originates from the government. It sounds like a perfect partnership between the deep state and the big media, the very accusation that "conspiracy theorists" have been levelling for years. Does the deep state need a special story to act as a fix for its sins? No problem, just create the story in the deep-state news-creation rooms, and send it to the media. I wish I could have powers like that too. I could make you believe anything I wanted you to:
The video above shows that facial expressions can be altered for any individual's photo. I have seen many examples of this in social-media. For example, they can take an ordinary photo of Donald Trump, and make his face very angry, or stick his tongue out, whatever, and you wouldn't know that the photo was altered. Big media is no longer reliable in its photos or videos, and the FBI etc. have photo-doctoring rooms where the intent is to feed the public such disinformation. In the same way that government sends news reports to the media, so does the FBI when it needs to, for example during false-flag events. The media is compelled to air the FBI / CIA report, or else. That's how things have been working since society left God for spiritual darkness.
And it ain't gonna get any better toward the Final Day. Everything will be deception and confusion until the crumbling masses cry out to the deep darkness as their "father", in hopes that it can restore stability by its great military might.
Here, have a heart-a-tax:
I've watched a lot of youtube in recent weeks, but never came to one video where youtube forced me to sign in and assure my age over 18 until coming to "Times Square. Do you see what I see? Part 2". Youtube forced the same upon me when I tried to load Part 1. These videos happen to show that the Times-Square terror act was a fake, and indeed it was a fake. Youtube is trying to minimize the damage that these videos can cause.
Here's liberal / humanist Canada at its best clown act. A Canadian cannot, according to a new bill, say or write "cameraman" anymore if it's a she, or that Canadian can be charged for a crime. This is how sensitive / intolerable the liberals get as per some who don't get in line with the transgender agenda. In my opinion, faggots are disgusting. They put their mouths on body parts in such ways that makes me sick, disgusted. Can I not say so? Can I not feel that way if that's how I feel? Canada, let the Light shine, ignore and resist the liberals.
The video above, dated June 18, the day I'm writing here, reports that the Americans just downed a Syrian jet tonight! I had no idea when loading this video that I'd get this news. It looks like the Americans are pushing a Syrian war right-away.
Drudge has the jet-shootdown story already, as well as another faked car-attack event apparently in hopes of keeping the news from paying attention to the Syria attack. Yes, Drudge has the headline, "WORSHIPPERS MOWED DOWN BY VAN OUTSIDE LONDON MOSQUE... DEVELOPING..." at the very top of the page right now, 10:50 pm Eastern time.
The U.S. military on Sunday shot down a Syrian Air Force fighter jet that bombed local forces aligned with the Americans in the fight against Islamic State militants, an action that appeared to mark a new escalation of the conflict.
...According to a statement from the Pentagon, pro-Syrian regime forces attacked the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces-held town of Ja'Din, south of Tabqah in northern Syria, wounding a number of SDF fighters and driving the SDF from the town.
I get it. The Americans are permitted to kill innocent civilians in air-strike misses / accidents, but when a Syrian plane accidentally kills a few Kurds, the American feel justified in shooting down their jets. However, I do not believe ther American story for a second, for it's been obvious to all that Trump's military has been pushing for all-out war with Assad.
Here's the Russian side of the story at an early time. The claim here is that the Syrians were firing on an ISIS convoy, which makes sense:
The RT article above gives hint on what really is taking place, with this: "The downing of the Syrian warplane, an Su-22, was confirmed by an official press statement from Operation Inherent Resolve, the US-led international task force against IS, which accused the Syrian government of targeting fighters from the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led militia." As it is inconceivable (at this time) that Assad would "target" this Kurdish militia, it becomes apparent that the Americans are lying, creating an excuse to start the war, the sooner the better because time only weakens ISIS all the more. I get it.
The jet was downed in the Raqqa area. Some months ago, when the Syrians arrived to Raqqa province to take the battle away from the American coalition, the Americans played against it, and took Raqqa as their own initiative. They have done virtually nothing since. The Americans are playing both the referee and the police inside a country not their own. This is the same behavior that they will use against Americans, in case Americans are cheering this attitude in Syria. Right is right, wrong is wrong; we shouldn't get to pick what's right or wrong based on which players we love or hate. That's hypocrisy that Jesus cannot condone, and hypocrisy leads to spiritual darkness.
The right thing to do is to get out of Syria. If Assad attacks Israel, then the Americans can attack Assad (but not beyond tit-for-tat) and do right. But what the Americans are doing now is evil. The Israelis support the downfall of Assad, but that doesn't make American intrusion into the country right, especially as their method of intrusion has been the inciting of a terrible civil war.
The right thing to do is for Israel to take power away from Hamas in Gaza, by force, but the West opposes this because the West is hypocritically blind in its spiritual darkness. No one can send missiles into Washington without paying a heavy backlash, but Hamas can repeatedly send missiles into Israel and get away with it everytime these days. The only way that this situation can be is by the West's hypocrisy (or double standard).
I've just looked at the many pictures out already of the faked act in Britain (at Daily Mail), classic productions. I can spot their creations by now in a few seconds flat. You would do well to ignore this news story. If you read up on it, you will allow their messages to enter your head. If you must read it, have the good sense to know that it's a government-sponsored trick.
Russia has said it will treat US warplanes operating in parts of Syria where its air forces are present as "targets" amid a diplomatic row caused by the downing of a Syrian jet. The country's defence ministry said the change in position would apply to all aircraft operating as part of the US-backed coalition west of the Euphrates River. It will also suspend a hotline between Russia and the US set up to prevent mid-air collisions...
"The US’ repeated combat operations under the guise of ‘combating terrorism’ against the legitimate armed forces of a UN member-country are a flagrant violation of international law and an actual military aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic."
It appears that the Russians were prepared for this tack. We are now in a game of chicken. The one backing down looks the weakest, and if neither side backs down, it could be war, with Europeans dragged in, Western lives and living all at stake, all for wee-wee Syria, the blame fully on Trump for any outcome. The onus is now on NATO members to threaten Russia before it attacks an American plane. From Sputnik: "'In areas where Russian aviation is conducting combat missions in the Syrian skies, any flying objects, including jets and unmanned aerial vehicles of the international coalition discovered west of the Euphrates River will be followed by Russian air and ground defenses as air targets,' the Russian Defense Ministry announced." The Russians stopped short of saying that they will shoot down the American planes, but the threat is made clear. Now we know why the United States had been intent on installing missile systems on the Russian borders. This war has long been in the works, and the push started with Bush Jr., whom I now regard as a half lunatic half fiend.
The problem with Americans on the street, and even up to some high levels, is that they have been deceived by NASA and the military into thinking that American military technology is far superior to that of Russia's. This can have the effect of coaxing Americans to take Russia on at this time in what could be an utterly lose-lose war.
For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God
Table of Contents