Clinton Cash FREE VIEWING 7/24/16

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/A1CkIHTkqkL.jpg

I believe Hillary Clinton is a very corrupt public official because of her actions while in office.  Now, opinions are one thing, but what are the facts really to back this up?  In the movie, Clinton Cash, you find out that as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton had authority to approve or deny deals that could greatly enrich people.

For decades the Clinton’s have spoken for pro-environmental causes, human rights, women’s issue and helping the poor, yet it appears they have taken about faces on those issues and surprisingly become fabulously wealthy at the same time!

Find out the facts for yourself.  I watched the movie for free on Breitbart tonight.  They might do it again, so be sure to keep an eye on that site. Here’s a Fox news story on Clinton Cash explaining some of the issues.  It’s not nearly as complete as the movie, but it brings many things to light.

To date, while the Clinton Foundation has made Billions, they have only paid out 10% in charity work according to sources.  So in examining this issue and deciding if you want this woman and this family in the most powerful position in the world ask yourself what they might do with such power and how America could be harmed.

In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants (click to read)

 

FREE SHOWING OF CLINTON CASH 7/24/16

 

 

 

President Trump: I’M WITH YOU! watch speeches

I watched the GOP convention all week.  It was a great convention despite the asshattery of Ted Cruz who appeared to commit career suicide on national TV!  The speakers, especially the Trump children were phenomenal!   People are reminiscing of the days of Camelot.  I think Americans long to go back in time before the Hippies and their socialist morality and agenda took over the nation.  To the spirit that moved in Kennedy who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what YOU can do for your country!”

We saw that love of country all week at the Trump GOP convention.  These are my favorite videos followed by the full speeches of a few.  I hope you enjoy hearing these for the first time or again, to build up hope for our future.

People have said America is headed down over a cliff.  Well, last night, Donald Trump not only stopped the bus, but turned it around with his vision and plans to put Americans first and to say “NO” to the globalists!   I LOVE IT!  Please pray for the protection of the Trump team.

I have put some of my favorite speeches from the convention here for your convenience.  Please bookmark the page and share it with your friends.  I love my country and want everyone to hear the true message of Trump particularly.

TRUMP: I’M WITH YOU!

LAURA INGRAHAM TAKING NAMES AND THROWING IT DOWN!!!

RUDY GIULIANI FIRED UP!!!

PATRICIA SMITH MOTHER OF SEAN SMITH KILLED IN BENGHAZI

MARK GEIST & JOHN TIEGEN BENGHAZI HEROS

NEWT GINGRICH FOREIGN POLICY

MELANIA TRUMP SIMPLY STUNNING

ERIC TRUMP FANTASTIC SPEECH

DONALD TRUMP JR. AMAZING SPEECH! 

IVANKA TRUMP GRACIOUS AND SMART

DONALD TRUMP

It’s Official: Smoking Does NOT Cause Lung Cancer

Article Source

See also:  Scientists Proved Smoking Prevents Lung Cancer

Smoking Does Not

Cause Lung Cancer

(According to WHO/CDC Data)*

By:  James P. Siepmann, MD

Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer.  It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer. I initially was going to write an article on how the professional literature and publications misuse the language by saying “smoking causes lung cancer”1,2, but the more that I looked into how biased the literature, professional organizations, and the media are, I modified this article to one on trying to put the relationship between smoking and cancer into perspective. (No, I did not get paid off by the tobacco companies, or anything else like that.)

When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, their answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now, if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then their answer based upon current evidence should have be “yes.”  But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect.   Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer (a 100% correlation) or at least expect a 50+% occurrence before someone uses the word “cause.”

Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A).  In fact, the data used is biased in the way that it was collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less.  I personally would not smoke cigarettes and take that risk, nor recommend cigarette smoking to others, but the numbers were less than I had been led to believe.  I only did the data on white males because they account for the largest number of lung cancers in the US, but a similar analysis can be done for other groups using the CDC data.

You don’t see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, “if you smoke you will die”, but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**

When we look at the data over a longer period, such as 50 years as we did here, the lifetime relative risk is only 8 (see Appendix A).  That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker.  It surprised me too because I had always heard numbers like 20-40 times more risk.  Statistics that are understandable and make sense to the general public, what a concept!

The process of developing cancer is complex and multifactorial.  It involves genetics, the immune system, cellular irritation, DNA alteration, dose and duration of exposure, and much more. Some of the known risk factors include genetics4,5,6, asbestos exposure7, sex8, HIV status9, vitamin deficiency10, diet11,12,13, pollution14 , shipbuilding15 and even just plain old being lazy.16 When some of these factors are combined they can have a synergistic effect17, but none of these risk factors are directly and independently responsible for “causing” lung cancer!

Look in any dictionary and you will find something like, “anything producing an effect or result.”18 At what level of occurrence would you feel comfortable saying that X “causes” Y?  For myself and most scientists, we would require Y to occur at least 50% of the time. Yet the media would have you believe that X causes Y when it actually occurs less than 10% of the time.

As ludicrous as that is, the medical and lay press is littered with such pabulum and gobbledygook. Even as web literate physician, it took me over 50 hours of internet time to find enough raw data to write this article.  I went through thousands of abstracts and numerous articles, only to find two articles that even questioned the degree of correlation between smoking and lung cancer (British lung cancer rates do not correlating to smoking rates)19,20 and another two articles which  questioned the link between second hand smoke (passive smoking) and lung cancer.21,22 Everywhere I looked, the information was hidden in terms like “odds ratio,” “relative risk,” or “annualized mortality rate.” Most doctors probably could not accurately define and interpret them all these terms accurately, let alone someone outside the medical profession. The public relies on the media to interpret this morass of data, but instead they are given politically correct and biased views.

If they would say that smoking increases the incidence of lung cancer or that smoking is a risk factor in the development of lung cancer, then I would agree. The purpose of this article is to emphasize the need to use language appropriately in both the medical and scientific literature (the media, as a whole, may be a lost cause).

Everything in life has risk; just going to work each day has risk. Are we supposed to live our lives in bed, hiding under the blanket in case a tornado should come into our bedroom? We in science, have a duty to give the public accurate information and then let them decide for themselves what risk is appropriate. To do otherwise is a subtle imposition of our biases on the populace.

We must embrace Theoretics as a discipline that strives to bring objectivity and logic back into science. Every article/study has some bias in it, the goal is to minimize such biases and present the facts in a comprehensible and logical manner. Unfortunately, most scientists have never taken a course in logic, and I’m sure that English class was not their favorite. Theoretics is a field of science which focuses on the use of logic and appropriate language in order to develop and communicate scientifically credible theories and ideas which will then have experimental implications. As someone whom I respect says, “Words mean things.”  Let us use language and logic appropriately in our research and in the way that we communicate information.

* * * * *

Yes, smoking is bad for you, but so is fast-food hamburgers, driving, and so on. We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information. Be warned though, that a society that attempts to remove all risk terminates individual liberty and will ultimately perish. Let us be logical in our endeavors and true in our pursuit of knowledge. Instead of fearful waiting for lung cancer to get me (because the media and much of the medical literature has falsely told me that smoking causes lung cancer), I can enjoy my occasional cigar even more now…now that I know the whole story.

* * * * *

The Untold Facts of Smoking (Yes, there is bias in science)

or

I feel like the Fox Network” (a bastion of truth in a sea of liberalism)

  1. USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and therefore virtually useless).
  2. No study has ever shown that casual cigar smoker (<5 cigars/wk, not inhaled) has an increased incidence of lung cancer.
  3. Lung cancer is not in even in the top 5 causes of death, it is only #9.**
  4. All cancers combined account for only 13% of all annual deaths and lung cancer only 2%.**
  5. Occasional cigarette use (<1 pk/wk) has never been shown to be a risk factor in lung cancer.
  6. Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.3
  7. Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer.
  8. A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
  9. No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.
  10. In one study they couldn’t even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.23
  11. If everyone in the world stopped smoking 50 years ago, the premature death rate would still be well over 80% of what it is today.1 (But I thought that smoking was the major cause of preventable death…hmmm.)

*This article was revised after errors in the data and calculations were noticed by Charles Rotter, Curtis Cameron and Jesse V. Silverman.  This is the corrected version.  A special thanks to both.

**WHO data of member countries

Keywords:  lung cancer, mortality, tobacco, smoking, Theoretics, language, WHO, cigarette, cigar, logic.

 

References (I back up my statements with facts, will those who respond do the same?)

1. Articles:

  • Pisani P, Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Estimates of the worldwide mortality from 25 cancers in 1990, Int J Cancer 1999 Sep 24;83(1):18-29; “Tobacco smoking and chewing are almost certainly the major preventable causes of cancer today.”
  • American Thoracic Society, Cigarette smoking and health.. , Am J Respir Crit Care Med; 153(2):861-5 1996; “Cigarette smoking remains the primary cause of preventable death and morbidity in the United States.”
  • Nordlund LA, Trends in smoking habits and lung cancer in Sweden, Eur J Cancer Prev 1998 Apr;7(2):109-16; “Tobacco smoking is the most important cause of lung cancer and accounts for about 80-90% of all cases of lung cancer among men and about 50-80% among women.”
  • JAMA 1997;278:1505-1508; “The chief cause of death included lung cancer, esophageal cancer and liver cancer. The death rate was higher for those who started smoking before age 25. If current smoking patterns persist, tobacco will eventually cause more than two million deaths each year in China.”
  • JAMA 1997;278:1500-1504; “We have demonstrated that smoking is a major cause of death in China….”
  • Hecht SS  hecht002@tc.umn.edu, Tobacco smoke carcinogens and lung cancer, J Natl Cancer Inst 1999 Jul 21;91(14):1194-210; “The complexity of tobacco smoke leads to some confusion about the mechanisms by which it causes lung cancer.”
  • Sarna L, Prevention: Tobacco control and cancer nursing, Cancer Nurs 1999 Feb;22(1):21-8; “In the next century, tobacco will become the number-one cause of preventable death throughout the world, resulting in half a billion deaths.”
  • Liu BQ, Peto R, Chen ZM, Boreham J, Wu YP, Li JY, Campbell TC, Chen JS, Emerging tobacco hazards in China: 1. Retrospective proportional mortality study of one million deaths, BMJ 1998 Nov 21;317(7170):1411-22; “If current smoking uptake rates persist in China (where about two thirds of men but few women become smokers) tobacco will kill about 100 million….”
  • Nordlund LA Trends in smoking habits and lung cancer in Sweden. Eur J Cancer Prev 1998 Apr;7(2):109-16; “Tobacco smoking is the most important cause of lung cancer and accounts for about 80-90% of all cases of lung cancer among men and about 50-80% among women.”
  • Skurnik Y, Shoenfeld Y Health effects of cigarette smoking, Clin Dermatol 1998 Sep-Oct;16(5):545-56 “Cigarette smoking, the chief preventable cause of illness and death in the industrialized nations.”

2. Websites:

  • JAMA Website: http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/sci-news/1996/snr0424.htm [link no longer active as of 2004];   “Yet huge obstacles remain in our path, and new roadblocks are being erected continuously,” writes Ronald M. Davis, M.D., director of the Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Mich., in urging a review of the effort against “the most important preventable cause of death in our society.”
  • JAMA Website:   http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/sci-news/1997/snr1203.htm#joc6d99 [link no longer active as of 2004]; “According to the authors, tobacco use has been cited as the chief avoidable cause of death in the U.S., responsible for more than 420,000 deaths annually ….”
  • JAMA Website: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v281n2/ffull/jwm80010-2.html [link no longer active as of 2004]; “The researchers reported that deaths caused by tobacco….”

3. The World Health Report 1999, chapter 5 and Statistical Annex and CDC data (http://www.cdc.gov/scientific.htm).

4.Mutat Res 1998 Feb 26;398(1-2):43-54 Association of the NAT1*10 genotype with increased chromosome aberrations and higher lung cancer risk in cigarette smokers. Abdel-Rahman SZ, El-Zein RA, Z

5. Schwartz AG, Rothrock M, Yang P, Swanson GM, “Increased cancer risk among relatives of nonsmoking lung cancer cases,” Genet Epidemiol 1999;17(1):1-15

6. Amos CI, Xu W, Spitz MR, Is there a genetic basis for lung cancer susceptibility?, Recent Results Cancer Res 1999;151:3-12

7. Silica, asbestos, man-made mineral fibers, and cancer. Author Steenland K; Stayner L Cancer Causes Control, 8(3):491-503 1997 May

8. Lam S, leRiche JC, Zheng Y, Coldman A, MacAulay C, Hawk E, Kelloff G, Gazdar AF, Sex-related differences in bronchial epithelial changes associated with tobacco smoking, J Natl Cancer Inst 1999 Apr 21;91(8):691-6

9. Ignacio I. Wistuba, MD, Comparison of Molecular Changes in Lung Cancers in HIV-Positive and HIV-Indeterminate Subjects, JAMAVol. 279, pp. 1554-1559, May 20, 1998

10. Kumagai Y, Pi JB, Lee S, Sun GF, Yamanushi T, Sagai M, Shimojo N, Serum antioxidant vitamins and risk of lung and stomach cancers in Shenyang, Cancer Lett 1998 Jul 17;129(2):145-9 China.

11. Nyberg F, et al., Dietary factors and risk of lung cancer in never-smokers, Int J Cancer 1998 Nov 9;78(4):430-6

12. Sinha R, Kulldorff M, Curtin J, Brown CC, Alavanja MC, Swanson CA, “Fried, well-done red meat and risk of lung cancer in women.” Cancer Causes Control 1998 Dec;9(6):621-30.

13. Young KJ, Lee PN, Statistics and Computing Ltd, Surrey, UK. Intervention studies on cancer, Eur J Cancer Prev 1999 Apr;8(2):91-103

14. Long-term inhalable particles and other air pollutants related to mortality in nonsmokers.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999 Feb;159(2):373-82.

15. Blot WJ, Fraumeni JF, Lung Cancer Mortality in the US: Shipyard Correlations Source, Ann N Y Acad Sci; 330:313-315 1979 UI: 80659437

16. Lee IM, Sesso HD, Paffenbarger RS Jr, Physical activity and risk of lung cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1999 Aug;28(4):620-5

17. Kamp DW, Greenberger MJ, Sbalchierro JS, Preusen SE, Weitzman SA, Cigarette smoke augments asbestos-induced alveolar epithelial cell injury: role of free radicals, Free Radic Biol Med 1998 Oct;25(6):728-39

18. The Complete Reference Collection, 1996-9, Compton’s.

19. Lee PN, Forey BA, Trends in cigarette consumption cannot fully explain trends in British lung cancer rates, J Epidemiol Community Health; 52(2):82-92 1998

20. Pandey M, Mathew A, Nair MK, Global perspective of tobacco habits and lung cancer: a lesson for third world countries. Eur J Cancer Prev 1999 Aug;8(4):271-9

21. Jahn O, [Passive smoking, a risk factor for lung carcinoma?], Wien Klin Wochenschr; 108(18):570-3 1996

22. Nilsson R, Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer: a reappraisal, Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 34(1):2-17 1996

23. Finch GL, Nikula KJ, Belinsky SA, Barr EB, Stoner GD, Lechner JF, Failure of cigarette smoke to induce or promote lung cancer in the A/J mouse, Cancer Lett; 99(2):161-7 1996

Appendix A:                                               US white male data3

For those of you who actually read the whole article…

As long as I’m being controversial by presenting both sides of the story, do I dare tell you that a woman is three times more likely to die from an abortion than from delivering a baby (WHO data).

 

 

 

 

It’s Official: TRUMP / Pence !

 

It’s taken over a year, and tonight my candidate and the next President of the United States was elected the GOP Presidential nominee!  I cannot hide my joy and hope for the coming election.

America faces great challenges.  We have to secure our borders, strengthen our military and end the terrible trade deals forced upon us by corrupt politicians.  Trump will need assistance from the House and Senate which we gave to the Republicans!  It is their job to do the will of the people.  We want a wall NOW!  We want illegal immigration stopped and we want an end to insane importation of people from countries that are hostile to America.

It’s time to set aside petty differences. Trump vs Hillary is the difference in rebuilding our nation to one of strength and prosperity vs one that is a socialist nightmare where violence and more debt destroy us!

This GOP convention is the beginning of restoring America’s greatness!

 

Trump / Pence Ticket: What it means

I’m going to start off with the fact that I was not thrilled at first with Trump’s choice for VP being Pence.  I don’t like his past votes on veteran affairs, immigration, and trade issues.  What does this choice do for Trump’s chances of winning the Presidency?  This report from Mr. Still spells out some aspects of the actual numbers needed by Trump and where he stands to win the election via electoral votes:

Here is a Pence speech after Trump announced him as the Vice Presidential pick:

Sean Hannity had a great interview with Mr. Pence that covers some of the differences between Pence and Trump.  Trump does not like “yes” men.  I find it is a good thing to have someone who both has political experience, is well respected, and can offer a different insight.  Both men are for the border wall.  They are both for security via no more Muslims from terrorist states.  Both men are for strong trade deals for America.

Pence has a son serving in the Marines.  He is going to fight for veterans with Trump

So, how will Democrats try to attack Trump / Pence?

Hillary Clinton is Guilty, and we are cowards! Coming Race War for New Police State under Clinton.

This video explains just why we are losing our freedoms and nation, the once great United States of America.  The elites are fomenting a race war.  They are funding internal terrorist groups who threaten citizens and reporters.  Will she not be elected President through fraudulent voter practices and counting schemes?

I hope Trump beats her as one would a baby seal in debates!  I hope he puts tough questions to her.  She is a Kenite without conscience, and Americans need to hold her accountable.  The next President will choose possibly 4 or 5 Supreme Court justices who will determine cases on the second amendment and our freedoms.

It’s time to get involved and make your voices be heard!

America is being destroyed by Race Baiting

Double Standards

Imagine if a church full of white people were clapping as a Klan Wizard stood up and said, “It’s time to kill black people!”

They are making sure there will be push back.  They are waiting with baited breath for whites to stand up for themselves.

Those who know about the Hegelian dialectic understand that the elites use the tactic every day.  They want a certain outcome which is called the Problem, they create a crisis to make the population demand a solution which is what the Problem is meant to create! They are going to use chaos race wars to bring about a new police state.

Executive Order — United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force

I’m curious how you are going to read this.  It does not say it’s just for foreign issues that may affect American national interest.  It sounds like more plans to use U.S. military against U.S. citizens deemed “terrorists”.  I don’t think that means BLM.

 

Home

July 1, 2016

President Obama’s Newest Executive Order:

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

UNITED STATES POLICY ON PRE- AND POST-STRIKE MEASURES TO ADDRESS CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN U.S. OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF FORCE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. United States policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interests, our values, and our legal obligations. As a Nation, we are steadfastly committed to complying with our obligations under the law of armed conflict, including those that address the protection of civilians, such as the fundamental principles of necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality.

The protection of civilians is fundamentally consistent with the effective, efficient, and decisive use of force in pursuit of U.S. national interests. Minimizing civilian casualties can further mission objectives; help maintain the support of partner governments and vulnerable populations, especially in the conduct of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations; and enhance the legitimacy and sustainability of U.S. operations critical to our national security. As a matter of policy, the United States therefore routinely imposes certain heightened policy standards that are more protective than the requirements of the law of armed conflict that relate to the protection of civilians.

Civilian casualties are a tragic and at times unavoidable consequence of the use of force in situations of armed conflict or in the exercise of a state’s inherent right of self-defense. The U.S. Government shall maintain and promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, take appropriate steps when such casualties occur, and draw lessons from our operations to further enhance the protection of civilians.

Sec. 2. Policy. In furtherance of U.S. Government efforts to protect civilians in U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense, and with a view toward enhancing such efforts, relevant departments and agencies (agencies) shall continue to take certain measures in present and future operations.

(a) In particular, relevant agencies shall, consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:

(i) train personnel, commensurate with their responsibilities, on compliance with legal obligations and policy guidance that address the protection of civilians and on implementation of best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, including through exercises, pre-deployment training, and simulations of complex operational environments that include civilians;

(ii) develop, acquire, and field intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems that, by enabling more accurate battlespace awareness, contribute to the protection of civilians;

 (iii) develop, acquire, and field weapon systems and other technological capabilities that further enable the discriminate use of force in different operational contexts;

 (iv) take feasible precautions in conducting attacks to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, such as providing warnings to the civilian population (unless the circumstances do not permit), adjusting the timing of attacks, taking steps to ensure military objectives and civilians are clearly distinguished, and taking other measures appropriate to the circumstances; and

(v) conduct assessments that assist in the reduction of civilian casualties by identifying risks to civilians and evaluating efforts to reduce risks to civilians.

(b) In addition to the responsibilities above, relevant agencies shall also, as appropriate and consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:

(i) review or investigate incidents involving civilian casualties, including by considering relevant and credible information from all available sources, such as other agencies, partner governments, and nongovernmental organizations, and take measures to mitigate the likelihood of future incidents of civilian casualties;

(ii) acknowledge U.S. Government responsibility for civilian casualties and offer condolences, including ex gratia payments, to civilians who are injured or to the families of civilians who are killed;

(iii) engage with foreign partners to share and learn best practices for reducing the likelihood of and responding to civilian casualties, including through appropriate training and assistance; and

(iv) maintain channels for engagement with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other nongovernmental organizations that operate in conflict zones and encourage such organizations to assist in efforts to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, including by appropriately marking protected facilities, vehicles, and personnel, and by providing updated information on the locations of such facilities and personnel.

Sec. 3. Report on Strikes Undertaken by the U.S. Government Against Terrorist Targets Outside Areas of Active Hostilities. (a) The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), or such other official as the President may designate, shall obtain from relevant agencies information about the number of strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, as well as assessments of combatant and non-combatant deaths resulting from those strikes, and publicly release an unclassified summary of such information no later than May 1, 2017. By May 1 of each subsequent year, as consistent with the need to protect sources and methods, the DNI shall publicly release a report with the same information for the preceding calendar year.

(b) The annual report shall also include information obtained from relevant agencies regarding the general sources of information and methodology used to conduct these assessments and, as feasible and appropriate, shall address the general reasons for discrepancies between post-strike assessments from the U.S. Government and credible reporting from nongovernmental organizations regarding non-combatant deaths resulting from strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.

(c) In preparing a report under this section, the DNI shall review relevant and credible post-strike all-source reporting, including such information from nongovernmental sources, for the purpose of ensuring that this reporting is available to and considered by relevant agencies in their assessment of deaths.

(d) The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs may, as appropriate, request that the head of any relevant agency conduct additional reviews related to the intelligence assessments of deaths from strikes against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.

Sec. 4. Periodic Consultation. In furtherance of the policies and practices set forth in this order, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, through the National Security Council staff, will convene agencies with relevant defense, counterterrorism, intelligence, legal, civilian protection, and technology expertise to consult on civilian casualty trends, consider potential improvements to U.S. Government civilian casualty mitigation efforts, and, as appropriate, report to the Deputies and Principals Committees, consistent with Presidential Policy Directive 1 or its successor. Specific incidents will not be considered in this context, and will continue to be examined within relevant chains of command.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) The policies and practices set forth above are not intended to alter, and shall be implemented consistent with, the authority and responsibility of commanders and other U.S. personnel to execute their mission as directed by the President or other appropriate authorities, which necessarily includes the inherent right of self-defense and the maintenance of good order and discipline among U.S. personnel. No part of this order modifies the chain of command of the U.S. Armed Forces or the authority of U.S. commanders.

(b) No part of this order modifies priorities in the collection of intelligence or the development, acquisition, or fielding of weapon systems and other technological capabilities.

(c) No part of this order shall prejudice or supplant established procedures pertaining to administrative or criminal investigative or judicial processes in the context of the military justice system or other applicable law and regulation.

(d) The policies set forth in this order are consistent with existing U.S. obligations under international law and are not intended to create new international legal obligations; nor shall anything in this order be construed to derogate from obligations under applicable law, including the law of armed conflict.

(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 1, 2016.

The True Location of Solomon’s Temple Found

This video while a little long, shows the true location of the Temple where Jesus taught and worshiped.  Is the wailing wall in Jerusalem the closes to that Temple without going up to where the Dome of the Rock is?

No, the true location is much further away, and in the City of David.  The wailing wall is part of an old Roman fort called fort Antonia!  The Romans did not leave one rock of the temple location.  They uprooted ALL of them and drove the Jews out or killed them.  They left the fort to stand as an insult and testimony of their feat.  This video provides much factual data and historical resources.

There is no reason to have a fight over building the next temple up near the Dome on Fort Antonia!

 

 

Dr. Ernest L. Martin wrote a book explaining what he found, and how we came to think the wailing wall is the location of the old Temple when it’s really a Roman Fort.  I don’t think a lot are available as even the paperback is $46.56 on Amazon, but I’m sure the true history buff will enjoy it!

Why does this Temple topic matter? It’s part of the prophecy of the last days, and one will be built, and they are planning it now.  But, where will they build it? Jerusalem is a stumbling block.  What is the time of the Gentiles? What’s it have to do with Jerusalem?

(note,most who call themselves Jews are not, they are Khazars and follow Babylonian Mysticism!  You need to know this, because they play into prophecy a LOT!) I will post on that topic later.

Jesus told his disciples that not one stone would remain, and they asked when, just as we ask today when the end will be and his return.  The next thing he said to them was “DO NOT BE DECEIVED!”  The world has been deceived for a long time about Jerusalem.

An Honest Conversation about Race

The Color of Crime (Data Driven)

From the Color of Crime:

  • The evidence suggests that if there is police racial bias in arrests it is negligible. Victim and witness surveys show that police arrest violent criminals in close proportion to the rates at which criminals of different races commit violent crimes.
  • Both violent and non­violent crime has been declining in the United States since a high in 1993. 2015 saw a disturbing rise in murder in major American cities that some observers associated with depolicing” in response to intense media and public scrutiny of police activity.

Crime rates

  • There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups.
  • In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non­black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.

Interracial crime

  • In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.

Urban centers

  • In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting”—defined as firing a bullet that hits someone—a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely.
  • If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent.
  • In an all­-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.

Police shootings

  • In 2015, a black person was 2.45 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by the police. A Hispanic person was 1.21 times more likely. These figures are well within what would be expected given race differences in crime rates and likelihood to resist arrest.
  • In 2015, police killings of blacks accounted for approximately 4 percent of homicides of blacks. Police killings of unarmed blacks accounted for approximately 0.6 percent of homicides of blacks. The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) were killed by blacks.