Do you want to know who the real enemy is? Anyone who bombs other people under false pretenses:
May 16th, 2017
Following the breaking report from Fox News that third-party investigators in the Seth Rich murder have linked the former high level DNC staffer with Wikileaks as the possible source of over 44,000 emails, we thought it appropriate to post the following video.
While we’re not claiming there was any direct involvement by the DNC or Party heads with the killing of Rich on a D.C. street, we’re also not going to rule it out because… well, just see for yourself:
Nothing makes sense anymore. No wonder many of us retreat to conspiracy theories and evil entities. How else can we explain the evil that humanity does to other species and to itself?
With permission from
By Julie Alexander
May 23, 2017
We are being attacked from all angles, each and every one of us, every single day of our lives.
How clever the powers that shouldn’t be are, they have brainwashed us completely. We cannot even see that we are being culled.
People have strong feelings about many things; they may have thoughts in the back of their minds, thoughts that won’t go away.
Things just don’t seem right but they can’t quite put their fingers on what is actually wrong, they can’t quite grasp it.
Then the thought fades as everyday life takes over.
They may feel that governments aren’t doing anything to help them and whoever is in power nothing ever seems to change. Why is that?
They may see religion as a control system that is fundamentally flawed and causes more harm than good.
They do not believe in war and yet there are wars going on all the time.
They may not really understand why fluoride is added to water.
They may feel chemtrails are normal, aren’t they?
They may see that vaccination regulations are getting out of hand and people are being brainwashed to vaccinate at every opportunity for every little thing and that mandatory vaccinations can’t be right.
They may feel GMO crops are not good for us and the chemicals used on these crops are toxic.
They may think healthcare has become far too expensive and that it is being controlled by large pharmaceutical companies and there should be a better way.
They may believe we are now in a nanny state with too many rules and regulations that are not really beneficial to humanity.
They may see too many legal controls in place that do not benefit the general population they seem to benefit large corporations instead.
They may feel banks are ripping us all off, not really helping us. Banks seem to want us to get deeper in debt.
They may see the breakdown of family traditions and wonder why?
They realize work has become too important and is gradually taking attention away from their loved ones.
They may feel the world has gone mad and chaos is all around.
They may see injustice all around them, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
They may see health services failing; they may see family and friends succumb to drugs and alcohol addictions.
They see people becoming more and more stressed and miserable with their daily lives.
They see homeless people living on the streets and they try to avoid them.
They see nature slowly being destroyed and manipulated.
They keep losing more and more freedom every day and there always seems to be a logical explanation for it, it’s for our safety after all.
All this new technology is for our benefit it’s all to make our lives much easier isn’t it?
They see all these things and more, day in day out.
Slowly these ideas seep into their subconscious minds.
Somehow they cannot gather all of their feelings together, they see them as disconnected events all engineered by different sections of society.
They feel that they must be wrong, if all these areas of concern are opposed to their internal intuition and feelings. They get a sick feeling in their stomach and they try not to think about it all.
They feel that it must be them that are on the wrong track, so they slowly and silently forget about their feelings. Push them to the back of their minds.
They lack trust in themselves, they have been conditioned, manipulated, controlled into being obedient, they are frightened to speak up, no one else seems to be concerned, why should they be?
If something was really wrong wouldn’t someone be doing something about it, wouldn’t someone be telling everyone?
They continue watching these events unfold before their eyes. They do nothing.
They feel as if they are in a movie and everything is out of control.
They cannot seem to connect the dots.
The truth is too unbearable to imagine.
Could something be out there trying to destroy mankind as we know it? Could we really be in danger? Could all these events be controlled by the same source?
Denial takes over it is all too ridiculous to believe. No, this can’t possibly be happening. Can it?
They switch on the television and slowly fall back to sleep.
By Julie Alexander, HumansAreFree.com
About the author: I realized what was really going on in the world in 2013. Since then I have been trying to make sense of it all and help others along the way. I am still learning more each day. You can visit my Facebook here and my website here.
The President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte stated he would not let the US treat his country as a colony, during an interview with RT in Davao City on Thursday.
Speaking about relations between his country and the US, he stated that the Philippines should be “treated with dignity.”
The Department of Defense amassed $6 billion over the past seven years by billing the US armed forces excessive prices for fuel, the newspaper reports, citing official documents. The rates were often much higher than those paid by commercial airlines for jet fuel.
Since World War II, the Department of Defense, which is the largest single consumer of fuel in the world, purchases all of its fuel – around 100 million barrels of refined petroleum annually – and resells it at fixed prices to the Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marine Corps. To procure fuel, each branch of the US military pays for it out of their own budgets.
The military’s standard fuel price is set by the Pentagon’s comptroller in consultation with the Defense Logistics Agency and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. But the Pentagon raised the fixed fuel price even at times when energy markets were in decline, the newspaper reported.
“We’ve been complaining about this,” Ray Mabus, a former Navy secretary, told the Washington Post. “But if we do it too loudly, oh man, they come back on us really hard.” Other Navy officials, who vocally opposed the Pentagon’s scheme, said the surplus fund is known as a “bishop’s fund,” and is controlled by the office of the defense secretary.
“Another word for it is ‘slush fund,’” said Mabus, who served as a Navy secretary for eight years under the Obama administration.
In one case, in April 2013, John P. Roth, the Pentagon’s acting comptroller and chief financial officer, informed the armed forces that the standard fuel price would go up next month by 27 percent, from $3.73 to $4.72 per gallon.
At that time, fuel prices on the open market had been going down, and commercial airlines were paying $3.05 per gallon at the time, according to data from the Bureau for Transportation Statistics cited by the newspaper.
In 2015, when petroleum prices were plunging, the Pentagon managed to make an even bigger surplus, transferring an extra $1.2 billion to other military accounts.
Around $80 million were allocated to the Pentagon’s program to train and equip Syrian rebels fighting Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), records show. The program, designed to train 5,400 fighters, produced little results, as only 150 militants were trained. Others were killed or captured by Islamists or deserted.
In all, the Pentagon has withdrawn $5.9 billion from the ‘slush fund’ since 2011, according to Defense Department figures. Almost all of the surplus was generated from fuel savings, defense officials told the newspaper.
Roth, the Pentagon’s acting comptroller, defended the practice, saying it is normal to “balance out manageable shortfalls and surpluses” that invariably arise each fiscal year. Congress “expects us to solve most of our problems ourselves without coming back and asking them for more money,” he said.
He refused to admit that the Pentagon was capitalizing on fuel prices to fill the ‘slush fund.’
“It’s not a bishop’s fund and we don’t keep a bishop’s fund,” he said, noting that if it was indeed the case, he personally would make “a hell of a lot more money.”
“We are adopting a principled realism, rooted in common values and shared interests,” Trump told the Saudis and the leaders of another fifty Muslim nations on Sunday. But what on earth are those values? What values do the Americans share with the head-chopping, misogynist, undemocratic, dictatorial Saudis other than arms sales and oil?“
With permission from
May 22, 2017
So after inventing “fake news”, America’s crazed President on Sunday gave the world’s Muslims a fake speech. Donald Trump said he was not in Saudi Arabia to “lecture” – but then told the world’s Islamic preachers what to say, condemned “Islamist terrorism” as if violence was a solely Muslim phenomenon and then announced like an Old Testament prophet that he was in “a battle between good and evil”. There were no words of compassion, none of mercy, absolutely not a word of apology for his racist, anti-Muslim speeches of last year.
Even more incredibly, he blamed Iran – rather than Isis – for “fuelling sectarian violence”, pitied the Iranian people for their “despair” a day after they had freely elected a liberal reformer as their president, and demanded the further isolation of the largest Shiite country in the Middle East. The regime responsible for “so much instability” is Iran. The Shiite Hezbollah were condemned. So were the Shiite Yemenis. Trump’s Sunni Saudi hosts glowed with warmth at such wisdom.
And this was billed by CNN as a “reset” speech with the Muslim world. For “reset”, read “repair”, but Trump’s Sunday diatribe in Riyadh was in fact neither a “reset” nor a “repair”. It was the lecture he claimed he would not give.
“Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith,” he announced, utterly ignoring – as he had to – the fact that Saudi Arabia, not Iran, is the fountainhead of the very Wahhabi Salafist extremism whose “terrorists” murder “innocent people”.
He tried to avoid his old racist “radical Islamic extremist” mantra and tried to replace it with “Islamist extremism” but he apparently fluffed his words and said “Islamic” as well. The subtle difference he was trying to make in English was thus for Muslims no more than a variation on a theme: terrorists are Muslims.
All this, let us remember, came after Trump had sewn up yet another outrageous arms deal with the Saudis ($110bn or £84.4bn) and the proposed purchase by Qatar of what Trump obscenely referred to as “a lot of beautiful military equipment”. It seems almost fantastical that he should make such a remark only two days before meeting the Pope who in Cairo two weeks ago railed along with the Muslim Sheikh of Al Azhar against the evil of arms dealers.
“We are adopting a principled realism, rooted in common values and shared interests,” Trump told the Saudis and the leaders of another fifty Muslim nations on Sunday. But what on earth are those values? What values do the Americans share with the head-chopping, misogynist, undemocratic, dictatorial Saudis other than arms sales and oil?
And when Trump said that “our friends will never question our support, and our enemies will never doubt our determination,” were his friends supposed to be the Saudis? Or the “Islamic world” – which should surely include Iran and Syria and Yemen – and the warring militias of Libya? As for “enemies”, was he talking about Isis? Or Russia? Or Syria? Or Iran, whose newly elected president surely wants peace with America? Or was he – as part of the Muslim world will conclude with good reason – declaring his friendship with the Sunni Muslims of the world and his enmity towards the Shia Muslims?
For that, ultimately, was what the Riyadh speech-fest was all about. Take this little quotation: “We will make decisions based on real-world outcomes – not inflexible ideology. We will be guided by the lessons of experience, not the confines of rigid thinking. And, wherever possible, we will seek gradual reforms – not sudden intervention.” Now let’s parse this little horror. “Decisions based on real-world outcomes” means brutal pragmatism. “Gradual reforms” indicates that the US will do nothing for human rights and take no steps to prevent crimes against humanity – unless they are committed by Iran, Syria, Iraqi Shiites, the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah or Yemeni Shiite Houthis.
It was all about “partnership”, we were supposed to believe. It was about a “coalition”. You bet it would be. For America is not going to bleed as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the Arabs who must bleed as they fight each other, encouraged by the biggest arms supplier of them all. Thus Trump lectured them on their need to share “their part of the burden”. The Arabs will be “united and strong” as “the forces of good”. If the battle is between “decent people of all religions” and “barbaric criminals” – “between good and evil” – as Trump inferred, it was significant, was it not, that this battle was to start in the “sacred land” of Sunni Saudi Arabia?
By the time Trump reached the bit in which he threatened the bad guys – “if you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and your soul will be condemned” – he sounded like a speech-writer for Isis. Apparently – and unsurprisingly, perhaps – Trump’s actual speech was partly the work of the very man who wrote out his much ridiculed (and failed) legal attempt to ban Muslims of seven nations from the United States. All in all, quite a “reset”. Trump talked of peace but was preparing the Arabs for a Sunni-Shia war. The fawning leaders of the Muslim world, needless to say, clapped away when the mad president of America had finished speaking. But did they understand what his words really portended?