TRump as Hitler

Why are so many still fighting Trump?

We are a few hours from the inauguration of the 45th president of the United States of America, Donald Trump. Yet, what we see is continuing the attempt to discredit him.

Leftwing media organisations, intelligence agencies and even some governments appear to be against Trump.

Even the BBC is questioning his suitability to have the “authority to order an action that could result in the deaths of millions of people in under an hour.” They suggest that “The question on a lot of people’s minds right now is, given his thin skin and impulsive temperament, what are the safeguards, if any, to prevent an impetuous decision by one man with catastrophic consequences?”

There are attempts to have Mr Trump impeached, though he has not yet taken one action as president for good or ill.

We could go on, but let us stop there and ask the question, why is this? Why are so many fighting him before he has made even one decision as president?

Could it be answered by an interview with Newt Gingrich on Fox News, nearly a year ago?

“Because he is not part of the club. He is uncontrollable, (by them). He hasn’t been through the initiation rights. He didn’t belong to the secret society.”

They all seam like good points to me, but if you are used to having a president who you can control, who has been through the initiation rights and who has pledged to fulfil the wishes and aims of your secret society. If you are used to having a president who is part of your club and who serves you not his nation, then maybe Trump is a bit scary.

Theresa May Brexit 17-1-2017

Review of Theresa Mays Brexit vision.

Wow, what an amazing speech?

Who would have believed a few years ago that we would see such an amazing move to repatriate the power of our parliament.

On the whole, I believe that we should be thanking God for the clarity and clear approach that Theresa May has set forward and that despite her starting out on the ‘remain’ side of the argument, that she is now setting out such a clear and pro-UK-independence vision for Brexit. Full text here

If you have not see the full speech I highly recommend it Video below and full text here.

I have a few comment after this video.

Pros

“The public expect to be able to hold their governments to account very directly, and as a result supranational institutions as strong as those created by the European Union sit very uneasily in relation to our political history and way of life.” Yes, we do not want to be controlled by European bureaucrat that we can not elect or sack.

“It was a vote to restore, as we see it, our parliamentary democracy, national self-determination…” The first step in restoring our nation to any form of morality has to be to gain control of our national sovereignty.

“We want to buy your goods and services, sell you ours, trade with you as freely as possible, and work with one another to make sure we are all safer, more secure and more prosperous through continued friendship.” Yes, trade, not control.

“Not partial membership of the European Union, associate membership of the European Union, or anything that leaves us half-in, half-out. We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave.” Great!

“This will give the country maximum certainty as we leave the EU. The same rules and laws will apply on the day after Brexit as they did before. And it will be for the British Parliament to decide on any changes to that law after full scrutiny and proper Parliamentary debate.” Humm, not very keen on the move of a great many EU laws into UK law, but probably there is not an easy alternative.

“So we will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. And those laws will be interpreted by judges not in Luxembourg but in courts across this country.” GREAT!

“… we will ensure we can control immigration to Britain from Europe.” Good.

“But I want to be clear. What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the Single Market.” Great.

“Since joining the EU, trade as a percentage of GDP has broadly stagnated in the UK. That is why it is time for Britain to get out into the world and rediscover its role as a great, global, trading nation.” Very good.

“That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU.” Again good.

“I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.” VERY good.

Cons

On the whole, this was a great speech and I am very encouraged that we are moving in the right direction. However, I have a few concerns.

“we chose to build a truly Global Britain.” I would have preferred something like “Britain, trading globally.” Let us hope that, that is what she meant. “Global Britain” is mentioned ten times and the word ‘Global’ 15 times. Let us pray that this is a view to global trade, not globalism.

“It remains overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed.” Not sure why? Squabbling nations would not be good, but nor may a powerful body with a vision for ever closer union etc.

“… to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit.” Let us whole again that this is with a view to trade, not globalism.

“And it is why, as we repeal the European Communities Act, we will convert the “acquis” – the body of existing EU law – into British law.” As above, not a great idea, but there may be little practical alternative. At least we can then start to modify or get rid of these laws as appropriate.

The Twelve Points

  1. Provide certainty about the process of leaving the EU.
  2. Control of our own laws. Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.
  3. Strengthen the Union between the four nations of the United Kingdom.
  4. Deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic of Ireland.
  5. Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe.
    Protect rights for EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU.
  6. We want to guarantee rights of EU citizens living in Britain and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.
  7. Protect workers’ rights. Not only will the government protect the rights of workers set out in European legislation, we will build on them.
  8. Free trade with European markets through a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union.
  9. New trade agreements with other countries. It is time for Britain to get out into the world and rediscover its role as a great, global, trading nation.
  10. The best place for science and innovation. We will welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research and technology initiatives.
  11. Co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism. We will continue to work closely with our European allies in foreign and defence policy even as we leave the EU itself.
  12. A smooth, orderly Brexit. We believe a phased process of implementation will be in the interests of Britain, the EU institutions and member states.

Review of the US Intelligence Agency report into Russian election hacking

Updated – see the end of this article. 

Introduction

This is a review of the document Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections. You can read a copy of it here. I am writing this not because I am pro-Trump or pro-Russia or the Kremlin or Putin. But because it appears to me to be a gross inaccuracy and is propaganda, not accurate reporting.

There is very little of any substance to this report. In fact this report in more propaganda than intelligence briefing and does not even take to structure of a normal intelligence briefing. There are more than 10 pages that contain no information other than title etc. and a great deal of it is repetitive.

Many pages are no more than pure speculation. But let us have a look at the few pages that do contain specific claims, well almost specific.

Review

The report argues that Putin wanted to, “undermine public faith in the US democratic process.” Why? That would not get Tump in, and if it did, it would just leave questions over his legitimacy.

He also is alleged to want to, “denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.” That did not need any help from Putin. She has been denigrating herself from many years. Her record is poor, and her involvement in illegal or immoral behavior does not need exposing by Putin. There was a conspiracy with the mainstream media to give her favorable coverage, even to give her some of the debate questions before time. The release of DNC emails may have accelerated, the process, but she was a self-denigrating candidate.

A further claim is that “the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, the promotion of which Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as a threat to Russia and Putin’s regime.” If the Kremlin rightly or wrong felt that the US liberal democratic order was a threat to Russia, we should only expect Russia to try to protect itself. Maybe, we should think about that before we practice war drill, just meters from the Russian border.

It apparently is a problem that, “Putin publicly pointed to the Panama Papers.” They were public, maybe Putin reads the papers, and comment on what he reads in them. That proves he hacked the election I guess.

One of the most telling accusation is that “Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012 and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.” Is this not tantamount to an admission that Clinton himself had interfered in Russia, and had incited mass protests against Putin? I guess it is ok for America to do that as they are the good guys, but if Russia does it is it a near declaration of war.

I think the weirdest accusation on page 1 is that “Beginning in June, Putin’s public comments about the US presidential race avoided directly praising President-elect Trump, probably because Kremlin officials thought that any praise from Putin personally would backfire in the United States.” So, Putin did not publicly praise Tump… he must be guilty.

Putin also is accused of, “publicly indicated a preference for President-elect Trump’s stated policy to work with Russia.” So he wants to work with America… how terrible.

Apparently, Putin was keen on Trump’s, “Russia-friendly positions on Syria and Ukraine. Putin publicly contrasted the President-elect’s approach to Russia with Secretary Clinton’s “aggressive rhetoric.” So, Putin, who has been working to push the Christian killing jihadist forces out of Syria, would like to work with the next president of the USA, rather than having to deal with an aggressive, pro-insurgent president. These are damning accusations indeed.

Another horror to the intelligence community in the USA is that “Moscow also saw the election of President- elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).” How terrible, Putin and the Kremlin are against ISIS. Notice that the US intelligence agencies use the anti-Israel term ISIL instead of SISI.

Russia is criticized for its involvement in eastern Ukraine and its denials of involvement. Yanukovych’s decision to not sign an association agreement with the European Union in late 2013 triggered a mass wave of protests across Ukraine, culminating in the February 2014 coup. In US President Barack Obama’s interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Obama reveals the United States’ involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and that the country worked directly with Ukrainian right-wing fascist groups. So Russia is evil for involvement in the Ukraine, but the USA… well, again they are the good guys.

The US intelligence agencies claim that “In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.” Humm, how can this have been to support Trump, as in 2015 he was not considered a serious candidate.

The report claims that “GRU operations resulted in the compromise of the personal email accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.” Is this not rather shameful for the only world superpower. Why are not people in such important jobs, help to keep their emails accounts secure?

Another claim is that “Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting in June.” However, it is considered that the DNC and Podesta security was very poor. It would be very surprising if there was only one person or organization that hacked into this information. Hacking is rampant on the internet, and it can be shown that many appliances that are connected to the internet are at times hacked and owned within seconds of being connected to the internet. So it could have been the GRU, but that fact that they had an interest in this information or even a desire to publicize it, done not prove that they were responsible for leaking this information.

The report goes on, “In early September, Putin said publicly it was important the DNC data was exposed to WikiLeaks, calling the search for the source of the leaks a distraction and denying Russian “state-level” involvement.” America and Obama are not shy about coming out with comments about other countries. Why is Putin not allowed to make such comments? And he is right. Well, I think he is. If a party that is seeking to hold the most powerful office in the world, is trying to gain that power by both criminal and immoral means, should not the electors be told? Is not Putin right that this who Russia leaked the information a distraction from the fact that the DNC under Clinton was corrupt?

There is much talk about the close relationship between the Kremlin and RT, (formerly Russia Today), however, what is surprising about this? If you watch, RT do you not expect that you are hearing news from a Russian viewpoint? I know I do and I can filter it accordingly. In the same way, we have to do the same thing here in the UK. When you are watching the BBC, you know that it will be pushing a liberal, pro-feminist, pro-gay agenda.

Apparently, few Americans are aware of the fact that their mainstream media is almost if not actually in the pocket of the DNC. Even to the point of sharing some if not all of the debate questions with Clinton. For example, the Observer says, “nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails validated the concerns of Bernie Sanders supporters that the DNC helped rig the primary election for Clinton. These emails provided a glimpse into how the DNC and the mainstream media work together in providing public relations support for the Democratic establishment.” This relationship is so bad that even those media outlets that were for Clinton had to report it. A Washington Post headline says, “Donna Brazile is not apologizing for leaking CNN debate questions and topics to the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary. Her only regret, it seems, is that she got caught.”

The close relationship between Julian Assange and RT is again hardly surprising; WikiLeaks mission is to “designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists, and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public.” So they are likely to work with an organization that will let them communicate to the public.

The report relates that Russia was “NOT involved in vote tallying,” so why do they keep saying that Russia hacked the election? The may have informed the US electorate about immorality and illegality in the DNC, but that is not the same as hacking an election. Using the term, “Hacked the election,” is hyperbole and is in itself disinformation. So in the very statements that they make about Russia, they are themselves taking part in the same action, they are trying to influence world opinion against Russia. Only at the very worst, Russia used truthful and accurate information, American intelligence agencies, appears to be using hyperbole and disinformation.

When they claim thing like this, (and this is getting rather repetitive, much of this report is just the same empty claim repeated again and again,) “State-owned Russian media made increasingly favorable comments about President- elect Trump as the 2016 US general and primary election campaigns progressed while consistently offering negative coverage of Secretary Clinton.” So what, the BBC did the same thing but negative on Trump and positive on Clinton.

Another claim is that the Russians painted, “Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional US media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment.” The former is self-evident, most if not all mainstream media in the USA was anti-Trump, and many leaked emails show the close relationship they had with the DNC, even letting the DNC pre-vet stories before publication.

The American intelligence agencies then accuse Russia of using Trolls as well as RT to promote their message. A troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers. These trolls are said to have amplified stories about Clinton. But they do not seem to realize that the big problem is the accuracy of the stories about Clinton. The reports were accurate, or many of them where. Any amplification appears not to have been in the story as in a distortion of the story but in the spread of the story.

Conclusion

My conclusion is that this is really vapid and an empty piece of propaganda not evidence of Russian interference, or at least no undue interference in the US 2016 presidential election.


Update

Today, (10th Jan 2017), The Washington Times is reporting that the FBI Director James B. Comey, has said that the bureau requested but was denied direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s email servers and other hacked devices as part of its probe of Russian hacking. He said that the FBI made “multiple requests” for access, but in the end a private company, (that by the way was associated wth the DNC), was the one to conduct the forensic review and then shared details about what it found with investigators.

Conclusion cont.

So we are hearing that they know that Russia hacked the US elections, but they are taking someone else’s word for it. We could ask what the DNC had to hide, but let just leave it that we are looking a very serious accusation being made against a very powerful country, in a substantial part based on hearsay!

Secretary of State John Kerry

Regime change was Obama’s only objective in Syria

A recording of Secretary of State John Kerry talking with leaders of Syrian opposition groups shows Kerry’s approach to ISIS. The recording indicates Kerry’s administration believed that allowing the Islamic State to grow would serve the White House’s objective of regime change in Syrian, and the ousting of President Bashar Assad.

The recording was leaked to the New York Times and reported 30th September 2016, However the Conservative Tree House blog recently portions of Kerry’s statements that were overlooked at the time.

Regime change, Obama’s only objective.

Kerry suggests that Regime change was Obama’s only objective in Syria, and the Obama administration not only hoped ISIS would carry out the task, it gave arms to the jihadist army and its allies.

The recording is evidence that the State Department, underneath Hillary Clinton, engineered the clandestine transfer of weapons from Libya to Syria. These weapons ended up in reaching terrorist groups aligned with ISIS and al-Qaida.

It is somewhat hypercritical for Obama and much of the mass media in the USA to be complaining about Russia’s attempt to influence the US elections. Russia was only using alleged leaks and media campaigns, but America has been using guns, terrorists and the mass murder of particularly Christians,  to try to bring about regime change.

The audio is not great but can be heard here.

Taught in Britain to hate the Jews

I thought it was very timely when I found a link to this video in my inbox. This week the world, well most of it has been expressing its hate towards Israel’s Jews and making, unfounded judgments about the so-called, ‘occupied territories.’

If you have find minutes you might find this very interesting.

Please note both the indoctrination and the erroneous claims about Israel.

The book recommended in this video is [easyazon_link identifier=”B00DNL0NVE” locale=”UK” tag=”successmatter-21″]The Case for Israel[/easyazon_link]

[easyazon_image align=”none” height=”160″ identifier=”B00DNL0NVE” locale=”UK” src=”http://theredpill.report/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/41YhN8MVF9L.SL160.jpg” tag=”successmatter-21″ width=”105″]

UK on a collision course

The Guardian Newspaper states that, the UK role in brokering the UN’s resolution condemning Israel re its policy of building settlements on occupied Palestinian territory has left, ‘the UK on a collision course not just with Israel, but at odds with Donald Trump.’

There are at least three much more important issues that arise from the UK involvement in this disastrous resolution.

First, and here I will not go into all the biblical and historical evidence surrounding the facts of this situation, You can find out much for the background from John McTernan on the H&H report here.

But the facts is that it is not just Israel and Donald Trump that the UK is on a collision course with, But God. God is building the nation of Israel and will protect the nation of Israel and Jerusalem will be where Jesus returns at his second coming.

And before you get all huffy with me and go off about all the evils of Israel as a nation, give the time to watch John McTernan on the H&H report, and get a little of the UN/media/leftist propaganda out of your mind.

Second, we open the UK up to punishment for standing against the Lord’s anointed nation. Time is short and maybe another time I will look at the biblical support and the historic evidence for the punishment that God meters out to nations that stand against Israel.

Third, we are partakers in the events that are setting up the middle east for a major war. From the time of George W Bush and then accelerating through Barack Husain Obama, the middle east has been ripped apart. In some ways, it might be heard to see how things can get and worse, but they can.

The Muslim nations surrounding Israel have all sworn at times in the past that they will destroy Israel. If Israel is forced to return to what are sometimes referred to as pre-1967 borders, Israel will be left with an area of land that is indefensible against attack from it enemies.

Pushing Israel up against the wall like this will give them little or no alternative but to fight back, either against the coalition of 70 countries, that are trying to cripple the state of Israel or against the local nations, should they attack.

Be very, very careful, if they can, the media will persuade you that it is always Israel that is in the wrong and the Palestinians who are seeking peace. This is very far from the truth.

I can not say more now, time is running out and I want to post this today, but one last thing. PRAY, Pray for Israel and for God’s hand of protection on Israel, but also on us, if or when we move against Israel.

Two Russian Ambassadors

Two Russian diplomats killed in one day

Yesterday, Russian Ambassador to Turkey Andrei Karlov, was shot dead in front of TV cameras at the opening of the photo exhibition, in Turkey, and the head of Russia’s Latin America Department of the Foreign Ministry was found dead in his apartment that same evening from a gunshot wound to the skull.

It was either a bad day to be a Russian civil servant, or something suspicious is going on.

Just two days before Barack Obama said the United States will send a clear message to Russia and other nations to not hack American systems and said “we can do stuff to you.” Two days latter two ambassadors are dead.

They are probably not connected… but when you threaten someone, you better hope they do not have a accident a few days after.

the white house

Donald Trump wins Electoral College vote

The New York Times has just confirmed that the US Electoral College, has voted 304 to 232 for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump Completes Final Lap, Electoral College, to White House

The Electoral College has affirmed Donald J. Trump as the nation’s 45th president, pushing him past the 270 votes required to win the election.

May God richly bless America and Donald Trump.

As an aside. It is interesting to see, just how cool the NYT is playing trumps victory. The story is a very small box way down on the left.