Thursday, December 8, 2016

IS MR. GLOBALONEY ABOUT TO CLEAN HOUSE?


https://gizadeathstar.com/2016/12/mr-globaloney-clean-house/                                                                

One never ceases to marvel at the machinations of Mr. Globaloney, and I suspect that these stories, the shared by Mr. V.T., seem (at least to my mind) to have something to do with it:
Let's focus on the first article from the New York Post initially. Note the following:
Foreign governments will be encouraged to investigate the Clinton Foundation’s finances, as many are already turning off money spigots to the scandal-scarred group, The Post has learned.
A source close to President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team told The Post that the new administration plans to pressure the US ambassadors it will name to bring up the foundation with foreign governments — and suggest they probe its ­financial dealings.
But Trump’s statement didn’t preclude the backroom moves to investigate the group.
This is intriguing for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the hint of a possible emerging strategy on the part of the incoming Trump Administration, for President-elect Trump's administration can hardly investigate a "foundation" with international extent and involvement without the cooperation of foreign governments. The problem is, will they actually do so, and thereby expose their own politicians' complicity in a growing web of corruption that now, pace Wikileaks, seems to involve everything from bribery and grifting to pedophilia rings? One might, initially, be tempted to say no, this will not work. However, the growing opposition to "business as usual" has not remained confined to American shores; Europe certainly has its own healthy share of the phenomenon, most recently expressed in the growing rise of opposition to the refugee policies of Merkel, Hollande, and Brussels bureaucrats. The political pressure is there, and if those issues can be coupled to the wider issue of corruption among the globaloney crowd, then governments and politicians having dealings with the Clinton Foundation might be hard-pressed to ward off demands for investigations. In any case, those investigations will go forward in the free and independent media, and countries like Russia, as evidenced from the second RT op-ed interview with Lew Rockwell, appear to be willing to chip in their own efforts.
Indeed, Mr. Globaloney's image is so tattered right now, that he may have decided a little house-cleaning, and some sacrifices (a.k.a., the Clintons) are in order just out of the sheer necessity to convince people that they are, indeed, trying to right past wrongs and clean house. Here too, the corporate controlled media versus the free and independent media enter the picture, for another casualty of the recent American political circus was the corporate media itself, which showed obvious, and indeed almost psychotic and pathological bias, for Mrs. Clinton. The  current recount push being only one example, for as Mr. Trump has recently pointed out, most indications seem to be that voter fraud was largely in her behalf, raising the possibility that she did not win the popular vote either.
So it is an intriguing strategy that I am suggesting that Mr. Trump and his advisors are pursuing: internationalize the effort, and to the extent possible, involve Mr. Globaloney in the effort to clean his own rancid house.
Which brings us to the second article, the op-ed piece from RT's interview with Lew Rockwell, noted American political commentator. Note the following exchange and Mr. Rockwell's suggestive response:
RT:What’s your take on these recent (events)? 
Lew Rockwell: … Trump was right about Hillary being crooked, about the Clinton foundation being crooked, and I don’t think we’ve begun to see how much money was actually paid. So we know from the Department of the Environment and from this other German agency – millions of Euros – they got much more money than that from all different governments. The question is: why politics are corrupt. It is not unusual for politicians to be paid off. They thought they were buying - probably the most benign explanation - they thought they were buying preferment from the future Clinton administration. This proves what the Clinton Foundation actually was – a way to bribe Hillary Clinton and her aide Bill Clinton.
But I think maybe there is other stuff going on too. This was obviously not German government agencies giving the money, even though it was the poor taxpayers footing the bill. But it was individuals determining this to happen. Were these guys going to personally profit; what kind of crookedness is there on the part of the German politicians and German bureaucrats, as well as the Americans?  They should just alert us to the nature of politics, why we don’t want political decisions being made in these kinds of areas, why we don’t want bribes being paid. I am glad for the exposure… And how about getting it back since they didn’t get the favors they expected, really shouldn’t the Clintons give this money back to the German people? Maybe [the German people] could use it to keep some of the migrants out. That would be a nice change. (Emphasis added)
And there one has, perhaps(to continue in my line of high octane speculative reasoning) the other component of the strategy: drop the memes into public discussion, and drive the creation of pressure at the popular level, in this case, the meme being "you took the money, and didn't deliver, now we want it back." The article goes on to note that the German government had no preparations or contacts with the Trump campaign, so certain was it of a Hillary victory, thus emphasizing the geopolitical fallout and implications of his candidacy. Indeed, if one recalls, Russia almost alone was sending messages to both candidates during the process, and it was Mr. Putin who reached out to Trump shortly after his victory, while Hollande and Merkel whined and complained. In any case, Rockwell is here suggesting the real problem: the Mafia-like nature of contemporary politics in the west. He is not, of course, so naive as to believe that the money will actually be returned. The process and strategy here is much more subtle: to create the questions in Germany, at the popular level, of where that German money given to the Clintons came from, and who authorized its transfer. And again, the corporate controlled media in Germany will be no less reluctant to pursue the matter than its American counterparts. The real pursuit and inquiries will come from the free and independent media there, from a grassroots level, and perhaps even find expression in the Alternativ fur Deutschland and other opposition groups to Frau Merkel's government. One might expect, too, this to spill over into similar inquiries in France and the Netherlands. One may even anticipate, perhaps, similar revelations of similar dealings coming from those countries.
Of course, time will tell if any of these high octane speculations and predictions come true or not. But my bet is, watch for the stirrings of these types of questions, beginning in Europe, but quickly extending elsewhere internationally.

Independent Cancer Researcher Threatened Over Apple Seeds, Her Powerful Response

Editor’s note: Hi there. Erin Elizabeth here. Mary is referring to my holistic doctor death unintended series which you can read here. My better half of 7 years, Dr Mercola, and I send thoughts and prayers to all in the holistic field.
While I’ve never had the pleasure of meeting Amanda Mary Jewell, I have spoken to her online (and  video) and thought her story worth sharing with my audience.
Amanda, who goes by Mary, is an independent English cancer researcher, an alternative health adviser and no friend to the UK’s “Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)” (our equivalent to the FDA). She is at odds with them because she’s chosen to swim against the stream and promote two controversial, but well known, controversial cancer-fighting foods: apricot seeds and apple seeds. These two supplements have been lifesaving for many patients around the world, according to many in the holistic community.
(She also treats patients in the late stages of cancer with the Miracle Mineral Solution and just like with mainstream treatments, sadly, not everyone survives. MMS, used for over 70 years by holistic practitioners, is a strong remedy which critics call “industrial bleach” likely because it’s made of chlorine dioxide, which can be toxic in high doses.)
However, are the complaints against her justified or is she actually in trouble because she’s a holistic doctor? Well, according to the MHRA, promoting the two types of seeds as health foods breaches the following acts:
  • Fraud Act 2006: falsely representing a product. In Mary’s case, the government refuses to acknowledge that apricot kernels can help treat cancer.
  • The Cancer Act of 1939: prohibits anyone from making any advertisements that have to do with unapproved cancer treatments.
  • The Nutritional and Health Claims of England Regulations 2007
  • The Consumer Protection and Unfair Trading Regulations of 2008
  • The Human Medicines Regulation of 2012
  • The Supplements England Regulations of 2003
  • The Organic Products Regulation of 2009
These regulations, combined with the government’s refusal to recognize the benefits of apricot kernels, combine to create a solid monopoly for the pharmaceutical industry’s toxic cancer treatments and can be thrown in any holistic practitioner’s face at any time if the government or the industry feel threatened.
But, Mary, who is currently working at La Flor Dela Salud, a holistic healing center for chronic disease sufferers in Mexico, isn’t deterred:

What REALLY sent it down? Shock report reveals 9/11 tower DID NOT collapse because of fire

Posted by George Freund on December 6, 2016 


Building 7 has been at the centre of conspiracy theories since the Twin Towers were brought down

A SHOCK new report into the collapse of World Trade Centre Tower 7 is set to fuel the fires of conspiracy as it suggests multiple blazes caused its downfall.

By ZOIE O'BRIEN

PUBLISHED: 06:24, Sat, Nov 26, 2016 | UPDATED: 09:14, Sat, Nov 26, 2016

The building, which was situated next to New York’s Twin Towers, crumbled after the planes hit the towers.

Conspiracy theorists have long suggested "controlled explosions" were carried out in the building – but the official version of events says flaming debris from the burning Twin Towers flew into the 47-floor skyscraper.

Tower 7, which housed the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defence and the Office of Emergency Management, collapsed after seven hours of burning.



The Twin Towers were hit on September 11, 2001, killing almost three thousand people

The National Institute of Standards and Technology insists it was the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse as a result of fire.

But new bombshell claims suggest “office fires” could not have caused its destruction.

The report, by a group of top engineers from the University of Alaska, insists the flames could not have brought the tower down.

Dr J Leroy Hulsey revealed the team's boss findings at the Justice In Focus Symposium in New York.

He said: “It is our preliminary conclusions based upon our work to date that fire did not produce the failure at this particular building.”

The findings will add fuel to conspiracy theories which suggest the twin towers and WTC 7 were blown up.

Some have even blamed the US Government which they say wanted to provide the grounds for military strikes in the Middle East.

It is our preliminary conclusions based upon our work to date that fire did not produce the failure at this particular building

Dr J Leroy Hulsey



The World Trade Centre attacks rocked the globe but also sparked conspiracy theories

Historically, skyscrapers have resisted collapse after fires.

A skyscraper in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours in 1991 and a high-rise in Madrid in 2005 each remained standing following fires.

There is no evidence of death in Tower 7 - located around 100 metres from the Twin Towers.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/736223/9-11-tower-Building-7-collapse-fire-conspiracy

It's funny really. I was part of an unaired TV show debating this very issue. We were on the side of fire not collapsing the WTC. The enlighted Ph.D. was of the other opinion. We cleaned his clock. That's why the show was never aired. Now it's official. I think before the CIA invented the term 'conspiracy theory' people called it deductive reasoning.