Friends, this video answered a lot of unanswered questions for me. I think it will help you also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaaPDc8wslE
Sunday, September 29, 2019
What Should We Think About Israel? ماذا يجب أن نفكر في إسرائيل؟ madha yjb 'an nufakir fi 'iisrayiyl?
Friends, this video answered a lot of unanswered questions for me. I think it will help you also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaaPDc8wslE
Saturday, September 28, 2019
The Dreaded REPO anomaly! L'anomalia REPO temuta!
Keep in mind in 1930 the Fed shrank the money supply and turned the depression into the "Great Depression." Why is the Fed dangerously experimenting with excessive reserve levels? Is the Fed trying to destroy Trump's presidency?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBks35d3FgE
Below, Bill Dudley says the Fed doesn't know sh.........; Dudley seems to me to be a smiling, smooth talking con man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhZtqz5vr5Y
Why is the Fed pumping billions of dollars into the REPO market?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0tkZN2tNdQ
Fed to continue REPO operations until Oct. 10, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9UgR4ldbB4
Friday, September 27, 2019
"The Trigger" "الزناد" "alaznada"
David Icke's book "The Trigger" is being banned by the "presstitutes and lame stream media. If you are interested in seeking the truth I think you will find his long video below about his book is very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDDBjE5QJk
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Do We Want A War With Iran? Vogliamo una guerra con l'Iran?
President Donald Trump
does not want war with Iran. America does not want war with Iran. Even the
Senate Republicans are advising against military action in response to that
attack on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities.
"All of us (should) get together and exchange ideas, respectfully, and come to a consensus — and that should be bipartisan," says Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch of Idaho.
When Lindsey Graham said the White House had shown "weakness" and urged retaliatory strikes for what Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calls Iran's "act of war," the president backhanded his golfing buddy:
"It's very easy to attack, but if you ask Lindsey ... ask him how did going into the Middle East ... work out. And how did Iraq work out?"
Still, if neither America nor Iran wants war, what has brought us to the brink?
Answer: The policy imposed by Trump, Pompeo and John Bolton after our unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.
Our course was fixed by the policy we chose to pursue.
Imposing on Iran the most severe sanctions ever by one modern nation on another, short of war, the U.S., through "maximum pressure," sought to break the Iranian regime and bend it to America's will.
Submit to U.S. demands, we told Tehran, or watch your economy crumble and collapse and your people rise up in revolt and overthrow your regime.
Among the 12 demands issued by Pompeo:
End all enrichment of uranium or processing of plutonium. Halt all testing of ballistic missiles. Cut off Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Disarm and demobilize Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq. Terminate support for the Houthi rebels resisting Saudi intervention in Yemen.
The demands Pompeo made were those that victorious nations impose upon the defeated or defenseless. Pompeo's problem: Iran was neither.
Hezbollah is dominant in Lebanon. Along with Russia and Hezbollah, Iran and its militias enabled Bashar Assad to emerge victorious in an eight-year Syrian civil war. And the scores of thousands of Iranian-trained and -allied Shiite militia fighters in the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq outnumber the 5,200 U.S. troops there 20 times over.
Hence Tehran's defiant answer to Pompeo's 12 demands:
We will not capitulate, and if your sanctions prevent our oil from reaching our traditional buyers, we will prevent the oil of your Sunni allies from getting out of the Persian Gulf.
Hence, this summer, we saw tankers sabotaged and seized in the Gulf, insurance rates for tanker traffic surge, Iran shoot-down a $130 million U.S. Predator drone, and, a week ago, an attack on Saudi oil production facilities that cut Riyadh's exports in half.
This has been followed by an Iranian warning that a Saudi attack on Iran means war, and a U.S. attack will be met with a counterattack. We don't want war, the Iranians are saying, but if the alternative is to choke to death under U.S. sanctions, we will use our weapons to fight yours.
America might emerge victorious in such a war, but the cost could be calamitous, imperiling that fifth of the world's oil that traverses the Strait of Hormuz, and causing a global recession.
Yet even if there is no U.S. or Saudi military response to Saturday's attack, what is to prevent Iran from ordering a second strike that shuts down more Arab Gulf oil production?
Iran has shown the ability to do that, and, apparently, neither we nor the Saudis have the defenses to prevent such an attack.
A more fundamental question arises: If the United States was not attacked, why is it our duty to respond militarily to an attack on Saudi Arabia?
Saudi Arabia is not a member of NATO. It is not a treaty ally. The Middle East Security Alliance or "Arab NATO" chatted up a year ago to contain Iran — of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states — was stillborn. We are under no obligation to fight the Saudis' war.
Nor is Saudi Arabia a natural American ally.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman runs an Islamic autocracy.
He inserted himself into first position in the line of succession to the throne of his father, who's in failing health. He locked up his brother princes at the Riyadh Ritz Carlton to shake them down for billions of dollars.
He summoned the prime minister of Lebanon to the kingdom, where the crown prince forced him to resign in humiliation. He has ostracized Qatar from Arab Gulf councils. He has been accused of complicity in the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul.
With his U.S.-built and bought air force, the Crown Prince has made a hell on earth of Yemen to crush the Houthis rebels who hold the capital.
The question President Trump confronts today:
How does he get his country back off the limb he climbed out on while listening to the Republican neocons and hawks he defeated in 2016, but who have had an inordinate influence over his foreign policy?
"All of us (should) get together and exchange ideas, respectfully, and come to a consensus — and that should be bipartisan," says Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch of Idaho.
When Lindsey Graham said the White House had shown "weakness" and urged retaliatory strikes for what Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calls Iran's "act of war," the president backhanded his golfing buddy:
"It's very easy to attack, but if you ask Lindsey ... ask him how did going into the Middle East ... work out. And how did Iraq work out?"
Still, if neither America nor Iran wants war, what has brought us to the brink?
Answer: The policy imposed by Trump, Pompeo and John Bolton after our unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.
Our course was fixed by the policy we chose to pursue.
Imposing on Iran the most severe sanctions ever by one modern nation on another, short of war, the U.S., through "maximum pressure," sought to break the Iranian regime and bend it to America's will.
Submit to U.S. demands, we told Tehran, or watch your economy crumble and collapse and your people rise up in revolt and overthrow your regime.
Among the 12 demands issued by Pompeo:
End all enrichment of uranium or processing of plutonium. Halt all testing of ballistic missiles. Cut off Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Disarm and demobilize Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq. Terminate support for the Houthi rebels resisting Saudi intervention in Yemen.
The demands Pompeo made were those that victorious nations impose upon the defeated or defenseless. Pompeo's problem: Iran was neither.
Hezbollah is dominant in Lebanon. Along with Russia and Hezbollah, Iran and its militias enabled Bashar Assad to emerge victorious in an eight-year Syrian civil war. And the scores of thousands of Iranian-trained and -allied Shiite militia fighters in the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq outnumber the 5,200 U.S. troops there 20 times over.
Hence Tehran's defiant answer to Pompeo's 12 demands:
We will not capitulate, and if your sanctions prevent our oil from reaching our traditional buyers, we will prevent the oil of your Sunni allies from getting out of the Persian Gulf.
Hence, this summer, we saw tankers sabotaged and seized in the Gulf, insurance rates for tanker traffic surge, Iran shoot-down a $130 million U.S. Predator drone, and, a week ago, an attack on Saudi oil production facilities that cut Riyadh's exports in half.
This has been followed by an Iranian warning that a Saudi attack on Iran means war, and a U.S. attack will be met with a counterattack. We don't want war, the Iranians are saying, but if the alternative is to choke to death under U.S. sanctions, we will use our weapons to fight yours.
America might emerge victorious in such a war, but the cost could be calamitous, imperiling that fifth of the world's oil that traverses the Strait of Hormuz, and causing a global recession.
Yet even if there is no U.S. or Saudi military response to Saturday's attack, what is to prevent Iran from ordering a second strike that shuts down more Arab Gulf oil production?
Iran has shown the ability to do that, and, apparently, neither we nor the Saudis have the defenses to prevent such an attack.
A more fundamental question arises: If the United States was not attacked, why is it our duty to respond militarily to an attack on Saudi Arabia?
Saudi Arabia is not a member of NATO. It is not a treaty ally. The Middle East Security Alliance or "Arab NATO" chatted up a year ago to contain Iran — of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states — was stillborn. We are under no obligation to fight the Saudis' war.
Nor is Saudi Arabia a natural American ally.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman runs an Islamic autocracy.
He inserted himself into first position in the line of succession to the throne of his father, who's in failing health. He locked up his brother princes at the Riyadh Ritz Carlton to shake them down for billions of dollars.
He summoned the prime minister of Lebanon to the kingdom, where the crown prince forced him to resign in humiliation. He has ostracized Qatar from Arab Gulf councils. He has been accused of complicity in the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul.
With his U.S.-built and bought air force, the Crown Prince has made a hell on earth of Yemen to crush the Houthis rebels who hold the capital.
The question President Trump confronts today:
How does he get his country back off the limb he climbed out on while listening to the Republican neocons and hawks he defeated in 2016, but who have had an inordinate influence over his foreign policy?
Good Ole "Swamper, Creepy Joe"! Гуд Оле "Болотник, жуткий Джо" Gud Ole "Bolotnik, zhutkiy Dzho"
With the
revelation by an intel community "whistleblower" that President
Donald Trump, in a congratulatory call to the new president of Ukraine, pushed
him repeatedly to investigate the Joe Biden family connection to Ukrainian
corruption, the cry "Impeach!" is being heard anew in the land.
But revisiting how this latest scandal came about, and how it has begun to unfold, it is a good bet that the principal casualty could be the former vice president. Consider:
In May 2016, Joe Biden, as Barack Obama's designated point man on Ukraine, flew to Kiev to inform President Petro Poroshenko that a billion-dollar U.S. loan guarantee had been approved to enable Kiev to continue to service its mammoth debt.
But revisiting how this latest scandal came about, and how it has begun to unfold, it is a good bet that the principal casualty could be the former vice president. Consider:
In May 2016, Joe Biden, as Barack Obama's designated point man on Ukraine, flew to Kiev to inform President Petro Poroshenko that a billion-dollar U.S. loan guarantee had been approved to enable Kiev to continue to service its mammoth debt.
But, said Biden, the aid was conditional. There was a quid pro quo.
If Poroshenko's regime did not fire its chief prosecutor in six hours, Biden would fly home and Ukraine would get no loan guarantee. Ukraine capitulated instantly, said Joe, reveling in his pro-consul role.
Yet, left out of Biden's drama about how he dropped the hammer on a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor was this detail.
The prosecutor had been investigating Burisma Holdings, the biggest gas company in Ukraine. And right after the U.S.-backed coup that ousted the pro-Russian government in Kiev, and after Joe Biden had been given the lead on foreign aid for Ukraine, Burisma had installed on its board, at $50,000 a month, Hunter Biden, the son of the vice president.
Joe Biden claims that, though he was point man in the battle on corruption in Ukraine, he was unaware his son was raking in hundreds of thousands from one of the companies being investigated.
Said Joe on Saturday, "I have never spoken to my son about his various business dealings."
Is this credible?
Trump and Rudy Giuliani suspect not, and in
that July 25 phone call, Trump urged President Volodymyr Zelensky to reopen the
investigation of Hunter Biden and Burisma.
The media insist there is no story here and the real scandal is that Trump pressed Zelensky to reopen the investigation to target his strongest 2020 rival. Worse, say Trump's accusers, would be if the president conditioned the transfer of $250 million in approved military aid to Kiev on the new regime's acceding to his demands.
The questions raised are several:
Is it wrong to make military aid to a friendly nation conditional on that nation's compliance with legitimate requests or demands of the United States? Is it illegitimate to ask a friendly government to look into what may be corrupt conduct by the son of a U.S. vice president?
Joe Biden has an even bigger problem: This issue has begun to dominate the news at an especially vulnerable moment for his campaign.
Biden's stumbles and gaffes have already raised alarms among his followers and been seized upon by rivals such as Cory Booker, who has publicly suggested that the 76-year-old former vice president is losing it.
Biden's lead in the polls also appears shakier with each month. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has just taken a narrow lead in a Des Moines Register poll and crusading against Beltway corruption is central to her campaign.
"Too many politicians in both parties have convinced themselves that playing the money-for-influence game is the only way to get things done," Warren told her massive rally in New York City: "No more business as usual. Let's attack the corruption head on."
Soon, it will not only be Trump and Giuliani asking Biden questions abut Ukraine, Burisma and Hunter, but Democrats, too. Calls are rising for Biden's son to be called to testify before congressional committees.
With Trump airing new charges daily, Biden will be asked to respond by his traveling press. The charges and the countercharges will become what the presidential campaign is all about. Bad news for Joe Biden.
Can he afford to spend weeks, perhaps months, answering for his son's past schemes to enrich himself through connections to foreign regimes that seem less related to Hunter's talents than his being the son of a former vice president and possible future president?
"Ukraine-gate" is the latest battle in the death struggle between the "deep state" and a president empowered by Middle America to go to Washington and break that deep state's grip on the national destiny.
Another issue is raised here — the matter of whistleblowers listening in to or receiving readouts of presidential conversations with foreign leaders and having the power to decide for themselves whether the president is violating his oath and needs to be reported to Congress.
Eisenhower discussed coups in Iran and Guatemala and the use of nuclear weapons in Korea and the Taiwan Strait. JFK, through brother Bobby, cut a secret deal with Khrushchev to move U.S. missiles out of Turkey six months after the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba.
Who deputized bureaucratic whistleblowers to pass judgment on such conversations and tattle to Congress if they were offended?
The media insist there is no story here and the real scandal is that Trump pressed Zelensky to reopen the investigation to target his strongest 2020 rival. Worse, say Trump's accusers, would be if the president conditioned the transfer of $250 million in approved military aid to Kiev on the new regime's acceding to his demands.
The questions raised are several:
Is it wrong to make military aid to a friendly nation conditional on that nation's compliance with legitimate requests or demands of the United States? Is it illegitimate to ask a friendly government to look into what may be corrupt conduct by the son of a U.S. vice president?
Joe Biden has an even bigger problem: This issue has begun to dominate the news at an especially vulnerable moment for his campaign.
Biden's stumbles and gaffes have already raised alarms among his followers and been seized upon by rivals such as Cory Booker, who has publicly suggested that the 76-year-old former vice president is losing it.
Biden's lead in the polls also appears shakier with each month. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has just taken a narrow lead in a Des Moines Register poll and crusading against Beltway corruption is central to her campaign.
"Too many politicians in both parties have convinced themselves that playing the money-for-influence game is the only way to get things done," Warren told her massive rally in New York City: "No more business as usual. Let's attack the corruption head on."
Soon, it will not only be Trump and Giuliani asking Biden questions abut Ukraine, Burisma and Hunter, but Democrats, too. Calls are rising for Biden's son to be called to testify before congressional committees.
With Trump airing new charges daily, Biden will be asked to respond by his traveling press. The charges and the countercharges will become what the presidential campaign is all about. Bad news for Joe Biden.
Can he afford to spend weeks, perhaps months, answering for his son's past schemes to enrich himself through connections to foreign regimes that seem less related to Hunter's talents than his being the son of a former vice president and possible future president?
"Ukraine-gate" is the latest battle in the death struggle between the "deep state" and a president empowered by Middle America to go to Washington and break that deep state's grip on the national destiny.
Another issue is raised here — the matter of whistleblowers listening in to or receiving readouts of presidential conversations with foreign leaders and having the power to decide for themselves whether the president is violating his oath and needs to be reported to Congress.
Eisenhower discussed coups in Iran and Guatemala and the use of nuclear weapons in Korea and the Taiwan Strait. JFK, through brother Bobby, cut a secret deal with Khrushchev to move U.S. missiles out of Turkey six months after the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba.
Who deputized bureaucratic whistleblowers to pass judgment on such conversations and tattle to Congress if they were offended?
You’ve no doubt
heard the comparisons made lately between the Democrats and Wile E. Coyote chasing
the Roadrunner (Trump) and the Coyote ends up falling off a cliff, exploding,
or being flattened by an anvil. It happens over and over and the Coyote never
learns. It’s his compulsion, no matter how repetitious and self-destructive it
becomes.
This
time, with the so-called “whistleblower” story, that anvil is going to slam
down harder than ever. You see the cartoon anvil makes a sort of “whistling”
sound as it falls from high above. Do you think “Creepy Joe” can hear the anvil
getting ready to hit him?)
Thursday is the
day acting Director of National Intelligence is set to testify before Congress,
but the story is already falling apart. We know the report is hearsay --- that
the “whistleblower” didn’t even have firsthand knowledge of Trump’s call with
the Ukrainian president, which is just one reason why he or she is not really a
whistleblower as the statute defines it. Numerous officials were listening in
on that call, as on all calls between President Trump and foreign leaders, and
if something untoward was said, one of them should have reported it through
officially designated channels.
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Shia Houthis Get Their Revenge on Sunni Saudi Arabians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VBAVbCYZ2Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0buVT6VB88
Above, Yemeni Armed Forces have unveiled new domestically-built ballistic and winged missiles plus drones during a ceremony in the capital Sana’a.