Thursday, May 28, 2015

HELL of TORAH Part 5 of 6: Faith & Obedience; Hearing the Voice of God


'We’ll probably be at war this summer. If we’re lucky it won’t be nuclear.' Let that sink in.”

By Joshua Krause @ The Daily Sheeple

Last week, former NSA intelligence analyst John Schindler posted a rather disturbing tweet. With a statement that one could only assume to be a reference towards Russia, Schindler wrote “Said a senior NATO (non-US) GOFO to me today: 'We’ll probably be at war this summer. If we’re lucky it won’t be nuclear.' Let that sink in.”

So who is John Schindler? As a ten-year veteran of the NSA; he was in the news a bit more when Snowden was making frequent headlines. He used to be a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, and is currently a frequent contributor to Business Insider. According to his biography on Business Insider, he used to teach classes on security, strategy, intelligence, and terrorism, and he has “collaborated closely with other government agencies who would probably prefer he didn’t mention them.” It’s safe to say that Schindler probably brushes shoulders with high-ranking officials from time to time, so his tweet should be taken seriously.

It’s frightening to think that members of NATO may actually be preparing for, and expecting a war with Russia this summer, but unfortunately it’s not all that surprising. Given some of the activity we’re seeing around the world, it’s safe to assume that superpowers like the US, Russia, and China, are preparing for something big. Infowars also reported on Schindler’s tweet, and noted some of the provocative moves that have been going on around the world lately.
Earlier this month NATO launched its biggest ever wargame exercise on Russia’s doorstep. Moscow responded by conducting “provocative” wargames in the Mediterranean Sea in coordination with the Chinese PLA, the first ever naval drill involving both superpowers.

NATO powers are also taking part in one of Europe’s largest ever fighter jet drills from today, with the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Finland, Norway and Sweden all involved in the 12 day exercise.

Tensions are also building between the U.S. and China, with The Global Times, a state media outlet owned by the ruling Communist Party, today warning that “war is inevitable” if Washington doesn’t halt its demands that Beijing stop building artificial islands in the South China Sea.

“If the United States’ bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a U.S.-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea,” the newspaper said. “The intensity of the conflict will be higher than what people usually think of as ‘friction’.”

Last week, CNN revealed how China’s Navy has repeatedly issued warnings to U.S. surveillance planes flying over the South China Sea.
While these sorts of warnings come and go all the time, that in and of itself is kind of scary. The fact that we now live in a world where high-ranking officials just assume nuclear war is right around the corner, means we should be very concerned. Wars rarely, if ever, happen out of the blue. There are always quiet rumors of wars before the real deal comes to pass.

Here’s how much corporations paid US senators to fast-track the TPP bill

The Guardian – by C Robert Gibson and Taylor Channing

A decade in the making, the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is reaching its climax and as Congress hotly debates the biggest trade deal in a generation, its backers have turned on the cash spigot in the hopes of getting it passed.

“We’re very much in the endgame,” US trade representative Michael Froman told reporters over the weekend at a meeting of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum on the resort island of Boracay. His comments came days after TPP passed another crucial vote in the Senate.

That vote, to give Barack Obama the authority to speed the bill through Congress, comes as the president’s own supporters, senior economists and a host of activists have lobbied against a pact they argue will favor big business but harm US jobs, fail to secure better conditions for workers overseas and undermine free speech online.

Those critics are unlikely to be silenced by an analysis of the sudden flood of money it took to push the pact over its latest hurdle.

Fast-tracking the TPP, meaning its passage through Congress without having its contents available for debate or amendments, was only possible after lots of corporate money exchanged hands with senators. The US Senate passed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) – the fast-tracking bill – by a 65-33 margin on 14 May. Last Thursday, the Senate voted 62-38 to bring the debate on TPA to a close.

Those impressive majorities follow months of behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing by the world’s most well-heeled multinational corporations with just a handful of holdouts.

Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:

  • Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes.
  • The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.
  • The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.
The amounts given rise dramatically when looking at how much each senator running for re-election received.

Two days before the fast-track vote, Obama was a few votes shy of having the filibuster-proof majority he needed. Ron Wyden and seven other Senate Democrats announced they were on the fence on 12 May, distinguishing themselves from the Senate’s 54 Republicans and handful of Democrats as the votes to sway.

  • In just 24 hours, Wyden and five of those Democratic holdouts – Michael Bennet of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein of California, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, and Bill Nelson of Florida – caved and voted for fast-track.
  • Bennet, Murray, and Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the three of them. Bennet, who comes from the more purple state of Colorado, got $53,700 in corporate campaign donations between January and March 2015, according to Channing’s research. 
  • Almost 100% of the Republicans in the US Senate voted for fast-track – the only two non-votes on TPA were a Republican from Louisiana and a Republican from Alaska.
  • Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who is the former US trade representative, has been one of the loudest proponents of the TPP. He received $119,700 from 14 different corporations between January and March, most of which comes from donations from Goldman Sachs ($70,600), Pfizer ($15,700), and Procter & Gamble ($12,900). Portman is expected to run against former Ohio governor Ted Strickland in 2016 in one of the most politically competitive states in the country. 
  • Seven Republicans who voted “yea” to fast-track and are also running for re-election next year cleaned up between January and March. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia received $102,500 in corporate contributions. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, best known for proposing a Monsanto-written bill in 2013 that became known as the Monsanto Protection Act, received $77,900 – $13,500 of which came from Monsanto.
  • Arizona senator and former presidential candidate John McCain received $51,700 in the first quarter of 2015. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina received $60,000 in corporate donations. Eighty-one-year-old senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is running for his seventh Senate term, received $35,000. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who will be running for his first full six-year term in 2016, received $67,500 from pro-TPP corporations.

“It’s a rare thing for members of Congress to go against the money these days,” said Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us. “They know exactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fund their reelection campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist.

“How can we expect politicians who routinely receive campaign money, lucrative job offers, and lavish gifts from special interests to make impartial decisions that directly affect those same special interests?” Gidfar said. “As long as this kind of transparently corrupt behavior remains legal, we won’t have a government that truly represents the people.”

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

We all knew it was coming, now we know when: MENA LEE GREBIN - PART 1




Revoke Their Immunity: Fixing The Cop Problem

From Eric Peters:

You’ve no doubt heard the term, “checks and balances.” It’s usually mentioned in the context of government – of the American form of government (well, its theoretical form) in particular. The idea that the legislative branch acts as a check on the powers of the executive, while the judicial balances the legislative – and so on.

It’s a sound concept that maybe ought to be applied to police work.

Something’s got to be done.

On this point, almost everyone’s agreed. Because it’s obvious that cops are increasingly out of control.


But not surprisingly.

Because there are few – if any – checks and balances on cops. Much less in the way of legal constraints – or consequences. Even in cases of egregious, indefensible conduct. Hence, they are in a very real sense encouraged to engage in egregious, indefensible conduct.

Those wearing state-issued uniforms enjoy something called qualified immunity – an obnoxious doctrine that sets them apart as a special class under the law. A protected class.

Which inevitably becomes an entitled class. Armed to the teeth – and turned loose on us.

Is it surprising that excesses occur?

Cops have every incentive to behave badly. Are rewarded for being irresponsible.

And so they do – and are.

Expecting this not to happen is kind of like not expecting stray cats to show up in ever greater numbers if you keep on putting bowls of cat food out on the porch every night.

We’re often told (by Clovers) that government is a necessary evil because if left to their own devices, most people would otherwise run amok. Beat others up, kill them – take their stuff. It is only the prospect of consequences for reckless and criminal actions that keeps most people in check.

If true, why does the same principle apply less to cops?

Especially to cops?

Who, after all, are given life and death authority over other people. The bar ought to be higher – not lower. A prizefighter who uses his fists and skills to beat up a guy on the street faces much more serious legal consequences than a cop who does the same thing. Even though it amounts to the same thing.

A worse thing, actually.

Unlike Mike Tyson, who is just one Mike Tyson, a berserking cop has the weight of an entire system backing him up. And while no one in his right mind wants to go toe-to-toe with Mike Tyson, at least you can try to kick him in the nuts or poke him in the eye or something like that – and then get the hell out of there. But if you’re facing off against a berserking cop, any self-defense – even an attempt to ward off his kicks and punches to the head – constitutes “resisting” and opens you up to summary execution at worst, multiple felony charges at best.

This is an odd idea. If you are the victim of an assault – an unwarranted attack – why should you be denied your right to defend yourself simply because your attacker happens to be wearing a special outfit?

Mind: This is not to suggest open season on cops. It is to reject the current idea that it’s open season on us. That just as they have every right to fear for their safety – and take steps to ensure it – so have we.

No more – and no less.

If you or I face 20 years to life for pulling a gun on someone and pulling the trigger in a situation that did not involve a clearcut case of self-defense, in which we had no other viable option (such as backing away) then surely a cop who is guilty of the same offense deserves at least equal treatment.

Can anyone explain why this ought not to be the case?

It would certainly give trigger happy cops pause. How is that not a desirable thing? Shouldn’t cops – “heroes,” as they’re so often styled – be under at least as much pressure as we are to not shoot other people? Willing to give their fellow citizens at least the same benefit of the doubt that ordinary citizens are legally obligated to extend to one another?

If anything, consequences for reckless/criminal conduct ought to be more serious for cops. They are, after all, “trained professionals” – as we’re constantly told. They ought to be more rather than less familiar with the laws they are given authority to enforce. Should they not, accordingly, be treated more severely when they step beyond the law under color of the law? Or at least, shouldn’t that be the expectation?

As things are, cops are given legal license to behave aggressively, even homicidally. And so they do.

An ordinary citizen who acquires a concealed handgun permit is held to a much higher standard than an armed cop. Merely to reveal that one is armed (perhaps to encourage a potential assailant to back off and thereby defuse what might otherwise have been a violent encounter) can result in a felony “brandishing” charge. But a cop can draw – and point – his gun at you over a traffic stop. If he feels his “safety” was threatened – a standard so low you might as well say just because – he can shoot you and kill you and probably the worst that will happen is a few weeks of paid vacation until the Judge Dredd-esque summary execution is deemed “justified.”

This is unacceptable.


Legally protected – and so, entitled – classes of people is a notion that cannot be reconciled with the doctrine that the law apply equally to everyone. And if it does not apply equally – then it is merely the law of the jungle (the rule of the stronger, or might makes right) which is not morally binding on its victims.

Cops have contempt for the law because it largely does not apply to them. Hence the all-too-familiar sight of a cop driving his car well in excess of the posted speed limit – usually, not “buckled up” for safety – just because he can. Citizens have no legal authority to effect an arrest – even for egregious “speeding” (such as driving 80 or 90 MPH in a posted 60 MPH zone) that would result in any of us being issued a several hundred dollar fine, and quite possibly arrested on the spot and carted off to jail.

Ordinary people are not permitted to blow away someone’s puppy because they “felt threatened” – or even to step onto private property without permission. They have no power to randomly halt and rifle people’s pockets, kick down doors – often the wrong doors – and get away with it.

Cops do this and worse as a matter of routine.

And this is why the people, increasingly, feel contempt for cops. They are enforcers of laws that do not apply to them. Hypocrites – and bullies.

A feedback loop has been created – and if it’s not interrupted by sanity, it will only end one way: With lawless cops attempting to subdue a population that increasingly despises them, using any means necessary.

We are almost there. But it’s not too late to step back from the abyss.

Throw qualified immunity for anyone in the woods. Uniformed or not, if you murder someone, it’s murder. Not six weeks’ paid leave. Cops – like anyone else – should be encouraged to think twice before doing something of questionable legality – knowing that they could be sued into penury if they play fast and loose. Why not? The same pressure is on us – and we’re not armed and given authority over our fellow men.

With great power comes great responsibility.

Well, it used to.

And until it does again, we shouldn’t expect things to change for the better.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

The New World Order Makes It's Move On America! 2015


Conspiracy Against the Independence of the American People










NWO Controlled by Banksters and Multi-National Corporations - No Country for White People