looks like a meeting of some folk you may know;

i know: you're surprised;

in the great game, the empire opposing russia, its my opinion that this time the empire will lose, as it has earned that destination with its greed and lies, and here demitry orlov tells you why he thinks so as well;


An article I published close to five years ago, “Putin to Western elites: Play-time is over”, turned out to be the most popular thing I’ve written so far, having garnered over 200,000 reads over the intervening years. In it I wrote about Putin’s speech at the 2014 Valdai Club conference. In that speech he defined the new rules by which Russia conducts its foreign policy: out in the open, in full public view, as a sovereign nation among other sovereign nations, asserting its national interests and demanding to be treated as an equal. Yet again, Western elites failed to listen to him.
Instead of mutually beneficial cooperation they continued to speak the language of empty accusations and counterproductive yet toothless sanctions. And so, in yesterday’s address to Russia’s National Assembly Putin sounded note of complete and utter disdain and contempt for his “Western partners,” as he has usually called them. This time he called them “swine.”..........https://russia-insider.com/en/putin-now-thinks-western-elites-are-swine/ri26363

five stories you may have missed while focusing on the newest 'crime';


Last month, Jussie Smollett, who plays Jamal Lyon on the Fox show Empire, said two people approached him at about 2 a.m. on a Tuesday as he was walking to get something to eat and got his attention by yelling racial and homophobic slurs—specifically “this is MAGA country.” He claimed these people then hit him, poured an unknown chemical substance on him and wrapped a rope around his neck before they fled.
The nation was outraged, and rightfully so, that such a terrible crime inspired by hatred would take place on the streets of America. Presidential hopeful for 2020, Kamala Harris weighed in and compared the attack to a modern day lynching.
Coincidentally, after the attack, an anti-lynching bill moved through the Senate, which, after failing multiple times before, passed unanimously this time.
But Smollett’s story was apparently all lies. On Thursday, according to reports, Chicago police laid out their case against Smollett Thursday morning, accusing the TV star of orchestrating an elaborate hoax via two “bogus” hate crimes — one employing an alleged attack, and one involving a threatening letter — all in order to secure a pay raise.
The arrest even prompted a response by the president himself........https://thefreethoughtproject.com/jussie-smollett-distract-divide/

seven minutes of brother nathanael  presenting ideas you may wish to consider;

https://youtu.be/ElIP4GmSgQs

here's some more meat for those of you who bought hurricane trump's campaign promises to focus on our home and forget about mucking about in the affairs of other countries;

A largely ignored story reported by the Lebanese magazine “Ash Shiraa” on November 3, 1986, soon blossomed into a major scandal involving the covert sale of US weapons to the government of Iran and the illegal supply of weapons to right-wing Nicaraguan rebels. The Lebanese magazine was the first to reveal that the Ronald Reagan administration was covertly selling arms to Iran in exchange for the release of seven American hostages by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon.

On November 25, 1986, three weeks after the exposé by “Ash Shiraa,” US Attorney General Edwin Meese announced to a stunned nation that profits from the sale of American weapons to Iran were used to buy and ship weapons to the Contra rebels battling against the socialist government of President Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. The covert Reagan administration operation violated at least two laws. The first was breaking a US arms embargo on Iran. The second was a violation of the 1982 congressional Boland Amendment, which prohibited US taxpayers’ funds being used to overthrow the government of Nicaragua. The scandal almost resulted in Congress’s impeachment of Reagan and his vice-president, George H. W. Bush, from office.

Today, in a period of déjà vu, the Donald Trump administration has embarked on a Reaganesque policy of covertly shipping arms to Venezuelan rebels, based in Colombia and Brazil, readying for an insurrection against the government of President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela. At the same time, US covert operators have been caught in the act of mounting operations directed at the governments of Haiti and Nicaragua, both members of the increasingly-shrinking Latin American camp of Maduro allies........https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/02/22/trump-contra-war-redux-in-latin-america.html

if you're one of those unicorns who believe that 'our' government has any legal requirement to protect you i suggest you consider the following;


I have received a number of questions asking how the judge in the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, ruled that the police had no duty to protect the children. The judge’s decision was legally correct. The sheriff’s office had no constitutional duty to protect the students there during the deadly February 2018 Valentine’s Day massacre. That decision nullified a lawsuit filed by 15 students who said they suffered trauma during the attack. A total of 17 students and staff members lost their lives and 17 others were injured.

The decision was legally correct, but it seems so strange that people are dumbfounded. The Constitution is actually NEGATIVE. It was never drafted with an intent to provide you with rights. That seems strange because people are held by judges all the time to waive their rights. It is those decisions that are unconstitutional. Why is it impossible to waive a right? Because the Constitution is NEGATIVE and that means it is a RESTRAINT upon government as opposed to being a list of positive rights you possess.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Note the language. It does not bestow upon you the right to freedom of religion. Instead, it is a restraint upon the government that it “shall make no law” and in this manner, it is a deliberate NEGATIVE restraint upon government rather than being a POSITIVE right you possess.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Once again, judges have allowed people to be tortured and stripped of all rights, claiming they waived their rights. If the Constitution is negative and imposes no duty upon the government to provide you with any social program (e.g. it does not state that the police MUST come to your aid), then it also cannot be waived to allow you to be denied any right, for it is not your personal right. Waiving your right means you are constructively rewriting the Constitution so it applies differently for you than others.

The judge was correct in that decision that the police had NO duty to protect those children. Their actual legal duty is just to raise money for the government by giving you tickets. Therefore, it is not that the decision was wrong. Judges suddenly discovered the NEGATIVE aspect that occurs when you try to sue the government for failing to act. Yet, they flip it to a positive right that you can waive when it interferes with the government’s pursuit of its citizens.

Now you understand why I did not want to become a lawyer. There is no rule of law. He who sits on the bench makes the law at that instant and it will vary from one person to the next............https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/02/martin-armstrong/why-a-judge-ruled-the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-citizens/