Judicial Watch has detailed over 200 conflicts of interest associated with the Clinton Foundation and Comey is involved in many of these.
I previously interviewed John Cruz, form VP at HSBC bank, and talks about the fact that he could get no official interest from law enforcement agencies including DHS when he blew the whistle on this criminal organization. Now we know why. And now we know why Comey was appointed to FBI director, because one hand washes the other. And now we know why Clinton has escaped prosecution for her crimes.
The executive branch of the US Government is a criminal enterprise.
Related Video: Is Hillary Clinton A Zionist Shill?
With the official story in free fall, Americans are wondering just who did this heinous deed. With the US Government itself the prime suspect, many are asking if the US Government had help from an outside nation, one with a long track record of world-changing dirty tricks.
As people start to seriously examine the plethora of evidence regarding Israel’s numerous perfidies it comes as no surprise that recently we have seen Israel’s “useful idiots” launch a propaganda campaign to claim that Saudi Arabia was behind the 9-11 attacks, based on a lawsuit brought against Saudi Arabia by the families of the victims, and a secret report that Representatives Stephen F. Lynch and Walter B. Jones are demanding be made public; a report that purportedly claims Saudi arabia was behind 9-11. But anyone can bring a lawsuit against anyone for anything. That does not mean the lawsuit allegations are true. Nonsense lawsuits are a reality of the modern US court system, as are lawsuits staged primarily as political and propaganda stunts, which is what this appears to be. Likewise, the report the Representatives wish to make public appears to be the US Government’s attempt to “get ahead of the ball” and craft a new lie to replace the one that has failed. At the very least these two pieces of propaganda are intended to deflect interest away from Israel. At worst, it is the start of the campaign to justify military invasion of that country, just as Saddam’s nuclear weapons were the excuse to invade Iraq, and the more recently (and thankfully failed) attempt to justify invasion of Syria by claiming Syria’s government was gassing their own people.
As I have mentioned before, the best way to tell if you are being lied to is to look for what should be there but isn’t. In the case of the claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11, what should be there and isn’t is a motive for Saudi Arabia to do something like that.
Saudi Arabia does not have a history of dirty tricks, nor a demonstrated ability to carry out such deceptions. More to the point, Saudi Arabia has no motive to attack the United States. The Saudi princes have grown very rich indeed through the Petrodollar arrangement. Saudi Arabia buys many American products and weapons ($61 billion in 2011), and unlike Israel, the American taxpayer does not have to give them the money first with which to buy those weapons. Whereas Israel constantly takes money out of the US, the Saudis pour it in! Private Saudi investment in the US economy is over $400 billion. Saudi Arabia is a major creditor to the US Government. Exact figures are hard to find but Saudi Arabia has loaned the US Government hundreds of billions of dollars.
Saudi Arabia is not going to risk an attack on the US because all that wealth would vanish. The Saudi wealth inside the US would be frozen or seized, and the outstanding loans to the US would never be repaid. The “useful idiots” trying to save Israel by blaming 9-11 on Saudi Arabia have yet to come up with a motive for the Saudis to do something like 9-11 that risks losing all that cash.
Remember that Saudi Arabia was being framed for 9-11 right from the start. One of the accused hijackers, a Saudi Pilot named Saeed Al-Ghamdi, was still alive after 9-11and sued the US Government for defaming him.
And finally, here is some common sense that totally undermines the attempt to frame Saudi Arabia for 9-11. If Saudi Arabia really wanted to hurt the United States, they don’t need to fly airplanes into skyscrapers to do it. All they have to do is ask for their money back, all at once. The resulting damage to the US financial system would make 9-11 look like a minor inconvenience in comparison.
And it would be perfectly legal for Saudi Arabia to ask for their money back.
Which is why we know that the claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11 has no more basis in fact than the claim that Saddam had nuclear weapons or that Assad gassed his own people right in front of the UN chemical weapons inspectors.
As the media tries to blame Saudi Arabia for 9-11, it is worth recalling that the Bush administration initially claimed that Iraq was behind 9-11 to sell the 2003 invasion, then later admitted Iraq had actually been innocent. So there is a pattern of the US simply using 9-11 as a “one size fits all” excuse to invade yet another oil rich nation.
At the very least, even if you accept the new claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11, then it means the US Government was lying when they claimed Afghanistan and then Iraq were behind it! So why would you trust them now?
TODAY chat to former TV sports presenter and conspiracy theorist David Icke about his beliefs; like the moon being a space station and if aliens really exist.
Well-known conspiracy theorist David Icke has clashed with TODAY Show hosts Karl Stefanovic and Lisa Wilkinson over the origins of the moon and the existence of aliens.
The former sports journalist, in Australia for a series of talks as part of his ‘World Wide Wake Up Tour’, claims the September 11 attacks were an inside job and says aliens secretly live amongst us in “human form”.
“What’s the go with aliens then can you give us an indication of what’s happening?” co-host Karl Stefanovic asked.
“There is a common theme of a force that has been manipulating human society, and they call them all over the world different names,” Mr Icke said.
“But when you do the research, and I’ve been researching this for 26 years, not 26 seconds, you find that these different names are referring to the same force.”
Wilkinson then asked about his beliefs regarding the origin of the moon.
“You, for example, think the moon, our moon, is a hollowed-out space station?” Wilkinson asked.
“This was first suggested by Soviet scientists, who produced a detailed breakdown of how the moon cannot be natural, and everything that led them to believe the moon is hollow,” Mr Icke replied.
“Mainstream science cannot explain why a body that big, bigger than Pluto, can be going around a planet this small”.
Stefanovic then accused Mr Icke of being “very defensive” about his theories.
“No, I get exasperated,” Mr Icke replied.
“I get exasperated because the mainstream media and most of human society looks at the world down the wrong end of a telescope.”
“No I love these theories,” Stefanovic countered, adding “but I’m not slogging people $100 to listen to my rubbish.”
Mr Icke charges between $65-$100 for tickets to his full-day seminars.
When I was a kid, I was mesmerized by all things robotic. For a special birthday gift, my grandmother surprised me with a shiny, plastic-and-tin Robert the Robot toy. When I first looked at this gift in the box through the clear plastic wrap, I suspected a small miracle had just happened. Then, when I took it out of the box and turned the crank attached to its remote control, Robbie, as I affectionately called him, not only started to walk, but his eyes lit up a fiery red, too. I was convinced that the Red Sea had just parted.
Fast-forward about 50 years, and guess what: Robbie is alive, well, and serving frozen yogurt. Well, not exactly. But a company dubbed Fresh Healthy Vending is betting that it can successfully combine the consumer appeal of better-for-you frozen yogurt with the wide-eyed performance appeal of a robot-like machine—dubbed the Reis & Irvy’s Fro-Yo Kiosk—dishing out fro-yo that consumers can personalize with their favorite toppings.
“It’s one of the first direct experiences that most consumers will have with a robot,” says Nick Yates, chairman of Fresh Healthy Vending.
Indeed, the big sales pitch isn’t so much the frozen yogurt but the robotic machine that sells it. The robotic arm delicately removes a cup from its cup holder, places it in the yogurt dispenser, dispenses one of nine flavors, and then moves along to several toppings (customers can choose two of six). For 6 ounces of yogurt, some toppings, and, of course, the one-minute show, folks pay $3.50, or $4.50 for 8 ounces.
The robotic yogurt contraption was officially unveiled at the International Franchise Expo in New York City in June. Executives claim it’s the first fully automated frozen-yogurt robot to market.
It’s a far cry from Pinkberry, Red Mango, or sweetFrog. And it might sound a bit goofy to some. But in one form or another, robots of all sorts are showing up across fast food and retail. Ordering kiosks, some that act almost robotic, have popped up everywhere from McDonald’s to Sheetz as companies try to reduce labor costs and speed up service. Several vendors at this year’s National Restaurant Association Show featured kitchen robots ready to prepare everything from french fries to salads. Even Taco Bell is beta testing something called TacoBot, which is an artificially intelligent chat bot that not only takes orders via consumer apps, but also suggests order upgrades. And now there’s a robotic fro-yo machine.
Detractors have their doubts that a robot can revolutionize something like frozen yogurt. “I think it’s a desperate grab by fro-yo,” says Peter Madden, president and CEO of AgileCat, a branding specialty firm. What’s more, Madden says, the fro-yo world’s “brand positioning has never been rooted in the future and technology.”
But robots aren’t such a crazy idea in today’s foodservice world. With $15 minimum wages established in several states and cities, a fro-yo-scooping robot would have some relevance—though top executives at San Diego-based Fresh Healthy Vending say cost savings aren’t the driver at all. “The product is a show stopper,” Yates says. “The robotic arm is a novelty that stops people in their tracks. Kids go absolutely crazy for it.”
He’s seen it first-hand. An earlier version of the robotic yogurt machine continues to attract crowds at the Houston Space Center. A more recent version, at a trampoline park in Puerto Rico, is an even bigger hit, he says. And within the next 12 months, the company hopes to sell at least 50 more units to franchise owners nationally. All the machine really needs is 12 square feet of space, a 220-volt plug, and, yes, someone to tend to it.
While there’s no need for a human being to serve the product, someone has to maintain the equipment, which includes a 90-minute top-to-bottom cleaning every week. So the robotic machine isn’t a job killer, Yates says, which is how many people view robotic innovations in foodservice.
A robotic machine could help bring more excitement to the frozen-yogurt industry, which has seen expansion slow in the last couple of years. While the industry grew at a 18.2 percent clip in the five-year period leading up to 2015, according to market research firm IBISWorld, it will continue to grow at a far more conservative 5 percent annual rate in the years leading up to 2020.
Still, 5 percent counts as room to grow. And Yates predicts a robot vending machine could be just the thing to satisfy that potential.
“Robotics is the next generation of vending,” he says. “Yes, there’s a huge element of novelty and gimmickry to this, but that’s the way things are evolving.”
Madden, the consultant, says that while Millennials will post images and videos on Instagram and Snapchat of themselves using these robot machines, it will only be a passing trend “before they move on to the next thing.”
Not so, says Yates, who insists that impulsive purchases from machines like fro-yo robots will only grow—particularly in well-placed areas like tourist destinations, universities, and even hospitals.
Just six months ago, Nick Wright, Fresh Healthy Vending’s director of operations, was at Primary Children’s Hospital in Salt Lake City, where one of the early versions of the machine had been placed. But Wright wasn’t there because of the machine. He was there for the birth of his son, Oliver, who was born seven weeks premature and needed special attention.
Wright spent many days at the hospital, and during that time observed first-hand how children at the hospital—many with life-threatening illnesses—reacted to the robotic fro-yo maker.
Wright remembers one young boy in particular who was wheeled into the vending area. As soon as the boy saw the robotic fro-yo machine, “he was able to zone everything else out,” Wright says. “A massive smile appeared on the boy’s face.”
It was, of course, the boy’s Robert the Robot moment. For him, with the whirl of a shiny, robotic arm and a splash of M&M-topped fro-yo, the Red Sea parted.
Just on my way to my flight from Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport, I noticed this cover headline in the Yediot Aharonot newspaper front page:
“New IDF Chief Rabbi: It is permissible to rape during war”. Under that: “Col. Eyal Qarim has declared in the past “draft of girls is totally forbidden” – and claimed that in times of war it is permissible for soldiers to “have sex with comely gentile women against their will”.
I have followed the case of Qarim for quite a while. In fact, some three weeks ago I drafted an article covering the history of Qarim’s violent advocacy since 2003. Though at that point the story seemed not to be current, just yesterday those fears concerning Qarim’s possible influence were confirmed: Qarim was promoted from head of the IDF Rabbinate to IDF Chief Rabbi. Below is my drafted article.
The story of the IDF Chief Rabbi Col. Eyal Qarim and his opinions about rape in times of war is one that comes up occasionally in the media, as it again has done recently for example here, and cited on other sources. Lately, a contact asked me whether I could look at the Hebrew sources and confirm that there is no mistranslation.
Front page of Yediot with Qarim appointment, controversy
I am familiar with this case, and not only is there no mistranslation as such – there is a continuation of the story which seems to have gained no local (Israeli) nor international scrutiny, till now, and I think it deserves it. In order to understand the seriousness of the whole story, a certain historical overview is necessary:
The story has mainly come to be noticed due to Yossi Gurvitz’s article in March 2012titled “IDF colonel-rabbi implies: Rape is permitted in war”, where he notes an answer that Qarim, not in uniform at the point, gave to a concerned reader of a religious publication called Kipa asking about rape in times of war, opining that “prohibitions against immorality” are removed during war. Part of Qarim’s answer:
“[W]ar removes some of the prohibitions on sexual relations, and even though fraternizing with a gentile woman is a very serious matter, it was permitted during wartime (under the specific terms) out of understanding for the hardship endured by the warriors. And since the success of the whole at war is our goal, the Torah permitted the individual to satisfy the evil urge, under the conditions mentioned, for the purpose of the success of the whole.”
Gurvitz was making the point that although Qarim posted his answer in 2003, when he was out of uniform (Qarim had served as a combat soldier and commander in an elite IDF unit), he was in 2012 a commander in the military rabbinate, and considered for the post of Chief Military Rabbi.
Gurvitz asked the IDF Spokesman the following questions:
Is the rape of women during wartime agreeable to the IDF Ethics Code?
If not, why does a prominent military rabbi promote it?
If not, does the IDF intend to end the service of Col. Qarim, or bring charges against him?
How does the IDF Spokesman intend to deal with the anticipated damage to its image in the international arena, resulting from Col. Qarim’s ruling?
There was a response, as Gurvitz notes: “Frankly, I did not expect an answer, but surprisingly enough an enraged officer from IDF Spokesman New Media Unit called me. His official response was that Qarim was not an officer in active service when he wrote that ruling, and furthermore that my question ‘disrespects the IDF, the State of Israel and the Jewish religion,’ and hence his unit will no longer answer my questions.”
Apparently this exposure became a PR nuisance for the IDF, so the day after Gurvitz’s article came out, Qarim issued a “clarification” on the same religious website, Kipa (in Hebrew).
It is this clarification which is so interesting in terms of currency and as an addition to the story, because here is the military rabbi in uniform, and this is how he tries to backpedal. The response article is headlined:
“Rabbi Qarim clarifies: of course rape is not permitted in any situation – by halacha (religious ruling). Head of the Rabbinate Department answers activists from the left who have taken his words out of context. In clarification of the halachic (religious ruling) answer that he gave on Kipa , Rabbi Qarim says “of course the Torah never allowed rape of a woman”.
Let us scrutinize how exactly Qarim gets out of this one:
Of course the Torah never allowed rape of a woman. The ruling of “comely woman” [Deuteronomy 21] is meant to cause a soldier to retreat from his intention to take the [female] prisoner to be his wife, through a series of acts which moderate her beauty and accentuate her personality and her sorrow. If, after the whole process he still wishes to marry her, he must do this through Hupa [religious ceremony] and blessings…. In addition, the whole essence of the ruling was to refine the situation which was prevalent in the barbaric world of wars that was existent then, where any soldier was permitted to do as he pleased with the prisoner, and the purpose of the ruling is to prevent a soldier from taking the prisoner as wife in the heat of battle. It is clear that in our days, the world has advanced to a level of morality where prisoners are not taken to be married, of course this ruling is not to be carried out as written, as it is also in total opposition to the values and orders of the army.
Now it is necessary to scrutinize the original text and what was originally asked on the first Kipa article in 2003. The inquirer asked specifically: “How is it then, that it was told to me by a rabbi, that a comely woman can be [raped], according to some of the [Halachic] rulers, also before the whole process described in the Torah? That is, that [a man would] surrender to his desires, and have sex with her, and only later take her to her home etc.?”
Indeed, the text of the Torah is worrying in its formulation. Let us have a look at it. This is Deuteronomy 21:10-14:
“When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes”.
Indeed, the section is somewhat confusing – because the first “take her as a wife” that appears, and even more so in Hebrew וְלָקַחְתָּלְךָלְאִשָּׁה , could well be translated as an act of rape, in that the literal translation can be “and you took her as your woman”, in a “surrender to desires” as the inquirer puts it. Though the acts that follow are relating to the more formal question of marriage.
This is the very specific matter that the inquirer had asked about, and Qarim did not really answer it. Instead, he essentially explained how as the “success of the whole at war is our goal, the Torah permitted the individual to satisfy the evil urge”. As NRG noted, Qarim did not say “no, it is not permitted”.
But when pressed to backpedal, Qarim applied a novel technique. He addresses the rape issue in the Torah very lightly (“Of course the Torah never allowed rape of a woman”), but then goes to address another issue – the formal issue of the marriage – as if the two were one and the same. What he then regards as the “problem” that the Torah supposedly tries to tackle, is the actual ceremonial marriage – not the rape. So Qarim is saying that the problem is taking a decision to marry a prisoner “in the heat of battle”. Thus he now tackles a whole other matter, saying “it is clear that in our days, the world has advanced to a level of morality where prisoners are not taken to be married. Of course this ruling is not to be carried out as written, as it is also in total opposition to the values and orders of the army”.
But this is a straw man. The inquirer did not ask about marriage, but about rape, and noted that some rabbinical authorities have opined that the ruling could be about what to do after the “surrender to desires”. In his 2003 answer, Qarim was focusing on the rape issue, justifying it in historical terms, and not answering the question specifically in address of our times, as was asked.
Qarim provides very ambiguous answers, which in their focus may leave the reader confused. In 2003 he seemed to imply that rape is permitted for Jews in times of war (he did not make the explicit distinction between biblical times and now), and in his “clarification” he addressed marriage, not rape.
This ambivalence, straw-man-argumentation and obfuscation are very worrying. In the darkness of ambivalence, one could indeed be worried that soldiers, particularly those heeding rabbinical opinions, would be confused. And who knows what a confused soldier “in the heat of battle” could come to do with a Palestinian woman.
NRG noted in its article that “it’s now clear who Erez Efrati learned from”. Erez Efrati is an IDF Officer, the bodyguard of the Chief in Staff, who was convicted of rape and who told the Supreme Court in 2011 that the reason he attacked the young woman was because “he acted as if she was a terrorist”. NRG also notes the opinion of Tzfat chief rabbi Shmuel Eliayhu, also cited from the Kipa site:
“If IDF soldiers do not satisfy their evil lusts, they may lose the war, and then the enemy soldiers will rape our women. In other words, we are talking about rape as a protective measure”.
Thus it seems that rape in times of war is a rather contentious issue amongst Rabbis, even IDF Rabbis. “No” doesn’t necessarily mean “no”, violent attack can be considered as “protective measure”. One wonders whether the “barbaric world of wars” that Qarim refers to is actually distant history.
Postscript: In response to some outrage from a few politicians from the left and heads of women’s rights organizations in Israel, the IDF Spokesman is quoted in Yediot Aharonot today stating: “Col. Qarim seeks to clarify that his words were uttered only in regards to a Halachic interpretation question, but in no way as an answer to a practical question. Rabbi Qarim never wrote, said or even thought that an IDF soldier is permitted to sexually assault a woman during war – whoever interprets his words otherwise is mistaken and deceiving. Rabbi Qarim’s moral attitude can be witnessed in his long service in the military in various command posts, in combat and as well as rabbinical functions, where he has demonstrated total loyalty to the values of the IDF and the spirit of the IDF, especially values of human dignity towards all.”
But this is essentially the backpedaling that Qarim already attempted in 2012. As I have shown above, it is rather unconvincing.
Zionist Controlled Media Is Covering Up Black On White Crime
Randy Robbins reached out to AMERICAN FREE PRESS on June 11 when he left a comment on the AFP website under a May 28, 2012 article entitled “Media Covers Up Black Hate Crimes Against Whites” by Pete Papaherakles which proves, in painful detail, how the mainstream media almost completely ignores black-on-white crime, but spends days, weeks and sometimes months on the comparatively minuscule numbers of white-on-black crime.
Mr. Robbins explained in his comment that his daughter, Lindsey Gann, who coaches a girls 14-and-under softball team in Topeka, Kansas, “had confronted several children for hitting and bullying other younger kids,” which prompted several black parents to make racial comments and threaten to attack her.
Dave Gahary spoke with Randy and Lindsey’s husband Jeremy about the attack on Lindsey by a black mob, in this disturbing interview