Florida’s Mass Murderer Heard Voices Telling Him to Watch ISIS Material
The New York Times wrote on January 6:
“Federal law enforcement officials said they were investigating whether the gunman who opened fire on Friday at the airport in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., killing five people and wounding eight, was mentally disturbed and heard voices in his head telling him to commit acts of violence [and to watch ISIS material]. According to a senior law enforcement official, the gunman, identified as Esteban Santiago, 26, walked into the F.B.I. office in Anchorage in November and made disturbing remarks that prompted officials to urge him to seek mental health care.
“Mr. Santiago, appearing ‘agitated and incoherent,’ said ‘that his mind was being controlled by a U.S. intelligence agency,’ the official said. Other officials said it was too early to tell whether Mr. Santiago, who was captured in the airport, had been inspired by terrorist groups, including the Islamic State. The officials said he had viewed extremist materials on the internet…
“Mr. Santiago was discharged in August from the Alaska Army National Guard for ‘unsatisfactory performance’…
“The shooting comes at a tense time for a nation that has been watching nervously as terrorist attacks have occurred elsewhere in the world…”
ISIS is an organization thoroughly controlled by Satan and his demons. If Florida’s murdering gunman indeed heard voices ordering him to view ISIS material, the conclusion would be compelling that demons were telling him to do this.
Building a Wall
The Guardian stated on January 6:
“Donald Trump was forced to say that Mexico would pay for his planned border wall ‘later’ after Republican officials indicated Congress and US taxpayers would first foot the bill…”
Deutsche Welle wrote on January 6:
“On Twitter, Trump took to blaming the media: ‘The dishonest media does not report that any money spent on building the Great Wall (for sake of speed) will be paid back by Mexico later.’”
Breitbart added on January 6:
“‘When you understand that Mexico’s economy is dependent upon U.S. consumers, Donald Trump has all the cards he needs to play. On the trade negotiation side, I don’t think it’s that difficult for Donald Trump to convince Mexico that it’s in their best interest to reimburse us for building the wall,’ Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) explained to CNN… As the Associated Press observes, congressional Republicans believe no new legislation will be necessary to secure financing, because existing law [from previous US President George W. Bush] ‘already authorizes fencing and other technology along the southern border.’”
Repealing Obamacare Without Replacing It Simultaneously?
Newsmax wrote on January 7:
“Republicans are increasingly jittery over rushing to demolish much of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law without having a GOP alternative that’s ready to go.
“While nothing about revamping the nation’s $3 trillion-a-year health care system will be easy, Republican leaders want congressional committees to have legislation dismantling much of Obama’s overhaul ready by late January. They’re hoping Congress can quickly send a measure to incoming President Donald Trump phasing out the law, perhaps a couple of months later.
“Crafting a GOP replacement is likely to take longer, thanks to Republican divisions and solid Democratic opposition. With 20 million Americans now covered under Obama’s law, one political nightmare for Republicans would be repealing the statute and then proving unable to pass a new version.
“Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told reporters Friday that Republicans might find themselves in a ‘box canyon’ if they erase the healthcare law without a substitute in hand. One part of Obama’s law Republicans are eager to repeal is its tax increases on higher-earning people and segments of the health care industry that help finance expanded coverage. Corker said that if those taxes are voided but Republicans temporarily continue subsidies to help people buy coverage, ‘that means Republicans would have to vote for a tax increase’ to pay for them — usually a non-starter for the GOP…
“While Republicans will likely just need a simple Senate majority to approve their repeal bill, for procedural reasons later replacement legislation will probably need 60 votes in a chamber the GOP controls by just 52-48. That means a need for at least eight Democratic votes, though there will be pressure on 10 Democrats facing re-election next year from states Trump won in November… After repeatedly trying to repeal Obama’s law since its 2010 enactment, Republicans are under tremendous pressure from their voters to annul it swiftly.
“But GOP leaders have talked about their repeal not taking effect for perhaps two or three years. They’re discussing providing some type of revenue during that period to maintain coverage for people and perhaps for insurers so they won’t immediately abandon markets…”
Repeal and Replace Obamacare at the Same Time
Reuters wrote on January 10:
“U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday pressured fellow Republicans working to repeal Obamacare in Congress to pass a replacement for the healthcare law at the same time or soon after they vote to dismantle it… With Trump set to succeed Obama on Jan. 20, Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, face a dilemma. They have a chance to make good on their promise to gut the law, but forging an agreement on a replacement plan has eluded them.
“If Congress does not put in place a substitute, millions of Americans with the insurance may be at risk of losing coverage… House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan said on Tuesday that some elements of an insurance substitute likely would be ready when lawmakers vote to repeal Obamacare, but others would take longer. Some Republicans have said it could take up to two years to craft a replacement. Trump said a delay of that length was unacceptable…”
Russia Responsible for Hacking… While Mr. Trump Blames Democrats for Gross Negligence
Newsmax reported on January 6:
“President-elect Donald Trump slammed the Democratic National Committee late Friday for its ‘gross negligence’ that allowed Russia to hack into its systems during the presidential campaign. Trump ripped the Democrats on Twitter: ‘Gross negligence by the Democratic National Committee allowed hacking to take place. The Republican National Committee had strong defense!’
“The post came after Trump earlier Friday was briefed by U.S. intelligence officials on a report blaming Russian President Vladimir Putin for directing the hacking of the DNC and other party operatives to try to sway the election to the Republican candidate…
“The findings concluded that Putin and the Russian government ‘aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary [Hillary] Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him… All three agencies agree with this judgment,’ the document said. ‘CIA and FBI have a high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.’
“Trump had publicly questioned the veracity of the intelligence community’s conclusions on Moscow — even characterized them as a ‘political witch hunt’ seeking to undermine his administration.”
The Huffington Post added on January 6:
“On Friday, Trump listed Russia as one of several entities that could have been behind the theft and release of thousands of DNC emails… ‘While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat [sic] National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines,’ Trump said.”
The Guardian wrote on January 7:
“On Saturday, true to unrepentant form, Trump used Twitter to issue [his] comment. ‘Intelligence stated very strongly there was absolutely no evidence that hacking affected the election results,’ he wrote. ‘Voting machines not touched! Only reason the hacking of the poorly defended DNC is discussed is that the loss by the Dems was so big that they are totally embarrassed!’…
“Trump has also consistently spoken favourably of Putin and urged a closer relationship with Russia. On Saturday, he added: ‘Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only ‘stupid’ people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We have enough problems around the world without yet another one. When I am president, Russia will respect us far more than they do now and both countries will, perhaps, work together to solve some of the many great and pressing problems and issues of the WORLD!’”
Discriminating and Compromising Information about Donald Trump?
CNN reported on January 10:
“Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.
“The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump…
“One reason the nation’s intelligence chiefs took the extraordinary step of including the synopsis in the briefing documents was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington, multiple sources tell CNN.”
Even though CNN admitted that the allegations were not “confirmed,” CNN engaged in shameful conduct of reporting about them, opening the door for a left-liberal news agency to even publish these most outrageous allegations (many of them were subsequently disproven), while other liberal media, including the New York Times, refused to do so. Mr. Trump’s outrage about such irresponsible conduct by CNN and those of the intelligence agencies who leaked this “write-up” appears justified. Note next article.
Trump and Russia React
Deutsche Welle and Newsmax wrote on January 11:
“Trump took to his favorite medium, Twitter, to fire off an angry response about the allegations… ‘Russia just said the unverified report paid for by political opponents is “A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FABRICATION, UTTER NONSENSE.” Very unfair!’ ‘Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA – NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING.’
“‘I win an election easily, a great “movement” is verified, and crooked opponents try to belittle our victory with FAKE NEWS. A sorry state!’ ‘Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to “leak” into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?’
“Responding to the rumors on Wednesday, the Kremlin also described the reports as a ‘complete fabrication’ and denied having compromising material on either Trump or his ex-rival Hillary Clinton. ‘This is an obvious attempt to harm our bilateral relations,’ spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters, concurring with Trump’s comment of a ‘witch hunt.’”
The Telegraph added on January 11:
“[Donald Trump] said [during a press conference] the publishing of the report had been done by ‘sick people’ and suggested intelligence agencies had leaked it. ‘I think it was disgraceful, disgraceful that the intelligence agencies allowed any information that turned out to be so false and fake out there,’ he said.”
He also reiterated during the conference that the conduct of these intelligence agencies, leaking the “report,” mirrors something that Nazi Germany would have done and did.
Britain in the Crossfire
The Telegraph wrote on January 12:
“Britain has been dragged into the frantic row over the ‘dirty dossier’ on Donald Trump after it was claimed that the Government gave the FBI permission to speak to the former MI6 officer who compiled it. Sources in the US have told The Telegraph that Christopher Steele, a former spy, spoke to officials in London before he handed the document to the FBI and met one of its agents.
“The document… was leaked earlier this week, and Britain now finds itself caught in the crossfire of accusations between Russia and the US.
“On Thursday Russia publicly accused MI6 of ‘briefing both ways’ against Russia and Mr Trump and suggested Mr Steele was still working for the Secret Intelligence Service.
“Mr Trump has angrily rejected the information in the dossier as ‘fake’ and the involvement of a former MI6 officer is unlikely to help Britain’s intelligence-sharing relationship with the US when he becomes president later this month.
“Mr Steele, who friends say fears for his safety, has gone into hiding while the veracity of the claims made in his dossier, and his own reputation, continue to be fiercely debated… Mr Steele was hired to find information on Mr Trump by a Washington-based consultancy that was being paid by Republican opponents of the president-elect – the BBC claimed they were acting on behalf of fellow nominee Jeb Bush – and, later, by Democrats…
“The Daily Telegraph was told during a meeting with a highly-placed source in Washington DC last October that the FBI had contacted Mr Steele asking if they could discuss his findings with him. The source said that Mr Steele spoke to officials in London to ask for permission to speak to the FBI, which was duly granted, and that Downing Street was informed…”
Rex Tillerson’s Confirmation Hearing for US Secretary of State Position
Deutsche Welle reported on January 11:
“Rex Tillerson, who’s slated to be the next US Secretary of State, told his confirmation hearing that Washington needs to redefine its relationship with Moscow. The former-Exxon Mobil boss was given a nine-hour grilling. Tillerson said on Wednesday that Russia was one of several ‘adversaries’ posing ‘considerable threats’ to the world. But he refused to label Russian Preisdent Vladimir Putin a war criminal for [the] country’s role in the Syrian conflict.
“The former oil executive said that Russia’s ‘recent activities have disregarded American interests,’ in reference to the country’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its military intervention in Syria a little over a year ago…
“Tillerson did make a clear break from Trump in his thoughts on Ukraine. ‘Russia, today, poses a danger, but it is not unpredictable in advancing its own interests,’ he said, criticizing US President Barack Obama’s ‘very weak response’ to Crimea…
“In comments likely to threaten US-China relations, he said Beijing should be denied access to islands it has built in the contested South China Sea…”
Newsmax added on January 11:
“Rubio extensively grilled Tillerson during the hearing, attacking the retired Exxon Mobil CEO for refusing to call Russian President Vladimir Putin a war criminal for his army’s role in the Syrian civil war and arguing over new bipartisan legislation calling for mandatory sanctions against Moscow for its meddling in the U.S. election and other aggressive behavior worldwide… Rubio, who was re-elected to a second term in November, is one of 11 Republicans on the Senate’s Foreign Affairs Committee. With 10 Democrats on the committee, Rubio would almost certainly be the swing vote if he votes against Tillerson. That would kill the nomination and prevent it from going to the full Senate for a vote…”
“Mad Dog” James Mattis’ Confirmation Hearing for Defense Secretary Position
Deutsche Welle wrote on January 13:
“Retired General James Mattis’ confirmation hearing was far from contentious on Thursday, receiving praise from Democrats and Republicans alike. Mattis appears ready to be confirmed to become US President-elect Donald Trump’s defense secretary…
“During confirmation hearings, Mattis disagreed with Trump’s policies on Russia. While Trump wishes for stronger ties with Russia, Mattis warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin was ‘trying to break the North Atlantic alliance,’ going so far as to say Russia ‘poses a danger to US and European interests’…”
The Times of Israel added on January 12:
“President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Pentagon said Thursday that the United States should continue treating Tel Aviv as Israel’s capital, breaking with Republican members of Congress and intimations the incoming president could fulfill his campaign pledge to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.
“Asked during his confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee if he supported the embassy’s relocation, retired Marine Corps general James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis said, ‘Right now I stick with the current US policy.’
“Facing an hours-long session of questions from senators, he emphasized that ‘The capital of Israel that I go to, sir, is Tel Aviv, sir, because that’s where all their government people are.’ He also noted, however, the determination was not part of his remit as defense secretary nominee. ‘I would defer to the nominee of Secretary of State on that, sir,’ he said.”
US House of Representatives Condemns Anti-Israel UN Resolution and Obama Administration
JTA wrote on January 5:
‘The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly agreed to condemn a U.N. Security Council anti-settlements resolution and the Obama administration for allowing it through. The resolution, which passed Thursday evening by a vote of 342-80, said the Security Council vote last month ‘undermined the long-standing position of the United States to oppose and veto United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status issues.’
“The U.S. abstained, refraining from exercising its veto and allowing the Security Council resolution to pass 14-0. U.S. officials said then that they could not endorse the resolution because of the inherent anti-Israel bias of the United Nations, but did not want to veto it because they agreed with its premise that Israeli settlement construction was illegal and an obstruction to advancing peace…
“109 Democrats backed the resolution and 76 opposed it. Just four Republicans opposed the resolution…”
Move of US Embassy to Jerusalem Would Be “Catastrophic”
JTA wrote on January 6:
“Jordan’s government spokesman warned of ‘catastrophic’ repercussions if President-elect Donald Trump moves the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem as he indicated he would. Such a move could affect relations between the United States and regional allies, including Jordan… An embassy move would be a ‘red line’ for Jordan, would ‘inflame the Islamic and Arab streets’ and serve as a ‘gift to extremists,’ [the spokesman] said, adding that Jordan would use all possible political and diplomatic means in a bid to prevent such a decision.
“Jordan, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, is the custodian of Islam’s third holiest shrine, the Al-Aqsa mosque, in eastern Jerusalem. Israel captured eastern Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967 and annexed it to its capital. The Palestinians want to establish the capital of a future state in Jerusalem…
“Last month, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway was quoted as saying that moving the embassy to Jerusalem is a ‘very big priority’ for the president-elect. Trump’s choice for U.S. ambassador in Israel, David Friedman, has said he looks forward to working from Jerusalem.”
Newsmax reported on January 10:
“President-elect Donald Trump’s team is moving ahead with plans to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel out of Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, although diplomats and officials are ramping up warnings against the move. CNN reports that speculation in Israel is that the U.S. will announce the move on May 24, a national holiday in that country. Earlier this month, President Barack Obama renewed a waiver that blocks the move for six months…
“Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas wrote to Trump saying that he opposed the move, and has also written letters to the leaders of Russia, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Arab League… Secretary of State John Kerry also opposed the move, saying, ‘You’d have an explosion — an absolute explosion in the region, not just in the West Bank and perhaps even in Israel itself, but throughout the region.’”
Why the Hatred of Israel?
The Washington Times wrote on January 4:
“Secretary of State John Kerry, echoing other policymakers in the Obama administration, blasted Israel last week in a 70-minute rant about its supposedly self-destructive policies. Why does the world — including now the United States — single out liberal and lawful Israel but refrain from chastising truly illiberal countries?
“Mr. Kerry has never sermonized for so long about his plan to solve the Syrian crisis that has led to some 500,000 deaths or the vast migrant crisis that has nearly wrecked the European Union. No one in this administration has shown as much anger about the many thousands who have been killed and jailed in the Castro brothers’ Cuba, much less about the current Stone Age conditions in Venezuela or the nightmarish government of President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, an ally nation.
“President Obama did not champion the cause of the oppressed during the Green Revolution of 2009 in Iran. Did Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama become so outraged after Russia occupied South Ossetia, Crimea and eastern Ukraine? Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power was never so impassioned over the borders of Chinese-occupied Tibet, or over Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus.
“In terms of harkening back to the Palestinian ‘refugee’ crisis that started in the late 1940s, no one talks today in similar fashion about the Jews who survived the Holocaust and walked home, only to find that their houses in Eastern Europe were gone or occupied by others. Much less do we recall the 11 million German civilians who were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe in 1945 by the Soviets and their imposed Communist governments…
“When Mr. Obama entered office, among his first acts were to give an interview with the Saudi-owned news outlet Al Arabiya championing his outreach to the mostly non-democratic Islamic world and to blast democratic Israel on ‘settlements.’ Partly, the reason for such inordinate criticism of Israel is sheer cowardice… Partly, the cause of global hostility toward Israel is jealousy… the astounding success of Israel bothers so many failed states that the entire world takes notice. But partly, the source of anti-Israelism is ancient anti-Semitism… The world’s problem is that Israelis are Jews…”
Another reason—actually, the REAL reason—is that such end-time hatred towards Israel was prophesied in the Bible.
American Tanks Back in Germany
The Local wrote on January 6:
“Three years ago the US withdrew their last tank from European soil… The arrival of three US military cargo ships at the north German port signals a step up in a military stand-off between NATO and Russia, after Moscow annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. On Wednesday the cargo ship Resolve docked at Bremerhaven. By Saturday, Freedom and Endurance will have followed in its wake. After unloading, the tanks will make their way towards Poland, mainly by train, before being deployed across eastern and central Europe in military training exercises…
“A Bundeswehr (German army) spokesperson told the Märkische Oderzeitung that trains with a total length of 14 kilometres will be needed to transport all the tanks… most of the tanks will be transported by train. But military convoys will pass through Hamburg, Lower Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Brandenburg…”
Germany and France Must Lead Europe
On January 5, Euronews published the following editorial by Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor from 1998 to 2005:
“After the shock of the United Kingdom’s Brexit referendum and Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States in 2016, this will be a decisive year for Europe… Trump’s inauguration on January 20 may someday be remembered as a watershed moment for Europe. Judging by Trump’s past statements about Europe and its relationship with the US, the EU should be preparing for some profound shocks. The incoming US president, an exponent of the new nationalism, does not believe in European integration.
“Here he has an ally in Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has long tried to destabilize the EU by supporting nationalist forces and movements in its member states. If the Trump administration supports or turns a blind eye to those efforts, the EU… will have to brace itself for challenging times indeed.
“The consequences for the EU will be even more serious if, in addition to setting the US relationship with Russia on a new foundation, Trump continues to call into question America’s security guarantee for Europe… Europeans would suddenly find themselves standing alone against a Russia that has increasingly employed military means to challenge borders, such as in Ukraine, and to reassert its influence – or even hegemony – over Eastern Europe.
“… it will fall to its two largest and economically strongest countries, France and Germany, to bolster Europe’s defense. Other countries such as Italy… will also have a role to play, but France and Germany are indispensable.
“… Europeans cannot harbor any illusions about Russia’s intent. The Kremlin … will always prioritize military strength and geopolitical power over cooperative security arrangements.
“Russia does not view weakness or the lack of a threat from its neighbors as a basis for peace, but rather as an invitation to extend its own sphere of influence… If Europe wants a stable, enduring peace, it first must ensure that it is taken seriously, which is clearly not the case today. Europe can credibly strengthen its security only if France and Germany work together toward the same goal, which they will have an opportunity to do after their elections this year…
“The old EU developed into an economic power because it was protected beneath the US security umbrella. But without this guarantee, it can address its current geopolitical realities only by developing its own capacity to project political and military power. Six decades after the Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community, history and current developments are pushing France and Germany to shape Europe’s future once again.”
These are remarkable words… almost prophetic.
“Merkel: No ‘Eternal Guarantee’ for United States Cooperation with EU”
Deutsche Welle wrote on January 12:
“German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said it would be ‘naïve’ of the European Union to rely on US support. Instead she called for more solidarity within the EU in the wake of the Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s election.
“As concern grows in Europe about US President-elect Donald Trump’s commitment to transatlantic cooperation, German Chancellor Angela Merkel pushed for the European Union to ‘take more responsibility’ on the world stage during a speech on Thursday in Brussels.
“‘From the point of view of some of our traditional partners – and I am thinking here as well about the transatlantic relations – there is no eternal guarantee for a close cooperation with us Europeans,’ Merkel told an audience in Brussels after receiving honorary doctorate degrees from Belgium’s prestigious Leuven and Ghent universities.
“Although the chancellor did not mention Trump by name, she appeared to be referencing the incoming US leader’s remark that he would consider a country’s financial contributions to the NATO alliance before coming to their aid. ‘Europe is facing the biggest challenges for decades,’ Merkel said mentioning conflicts on its borders like that in Ukraine. She added that it would be ‘naive always to rely on others who would solve the problems in our neighborhood.’
“Merkel said that Great Britain’s shock vote to leave the EU increased the importance of solidarity within the rest of the bloc, which has been discussing measures to boost defense cooperation and other issues. ‘We should see this decision as an incentive to work together (for the goal), to hold Europe together now more than ever, to improve it further and to bring the citizens closer together again,’ she said.”
“The EU agreed to take first steps toward expanding security and defense cooperation at a summit in December.”
German Drug Companies Impacted by Mr. Trump’s Statements
The Local wrote on January 12:
“German pharmaceutical firms saw their stock prices drop on Thursday morning after US President-Elect Donald Trump used part of his chaotic press conference the day before to say that the US should negotiate better prices from drug companies.
“German pharmaceutical and biotech stocks were particularly impacted by Trump’s statements on Wednesday, and Germany’s DAX dropped by 0.59 percent within the first hour of trade on Thursday morning.
“Chemical giant Bayer had fallen by about 0.68 percent from the previous day as of 11am on Thursday, while Merck had dropped by about 1.96 percent…
“Medical supplies company Fresenius Medical Care had dropped by about 1 percent as of Thursday at 11am. The European pharmaceutical sector was the weakest on the Stoxx 600 with a drop of 2 percent…
“Trump said at his press conference in New York that he would make the pharmaceutical industry bid for government contracts… US law currently does not allow federal insurance programme Medicare to negotiate drug prices, essentially allowing the pharmaceutical industry to set their own drug prices. ‘They’re getting away with murder,’ Trump said about the industry. ‘Pharma has a lot of lobbyists and a lot of power and there is very little bidding.’
“It wasn’t just German pharmaceutical companies that felt the immediate effects of Trump’s pledge… the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index and the Standard & Poor’s 500 Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences Index both had their biggest single-day drops in three months, falling 3 and 1.7 percent respectively.
“The trend was also replicated on stock markets across Europe on Thursday morning, with pharma firms also underperforming in Denmark, Spain, France, Switzerland and Italy.”
Prince Charles—Britain’s Next Controversial Monarch and Uncomfortable “Defender of the Faith”
International Business Times wrote on January 5:
“The succession of the throne in Britain may be meticulously planned, but when Queen Elizabeth II does eventually pass on the crown to Prince Charles, it will be a process that is far from devoid of complications. The prince, who has been first in line to the throne for longer than any person in British history, will not only be the head of the United Kingdom, and likely the Commonwealth, but also of the Church of England. It is that title that is sure to bring up much painful and controversial history for the 68-year-old…
“While there has been speculation that Charles could abdicate and immediately pass on the responsibility to his eldest child, Prince William, that is considered highly unlikely… Still, his ascension to the throne is sure to bring up some ghosts he would rather leave in the closet. As king, Charles would be ‘Defender of the Faith,’ according to parliament decree. And in some ways, he could be seen as the perfect person to fill such a role given the history he shares with the Church of England.
“It was, after all, King Henry VIII’s failure to be granted an annulment of his marriage to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, by the Pope in the 1530s that led to the Church of England becoming the established church in England and splitting with the Roman Catholic Church. Charles, too, has gone through a divorce, having split from the much-loved Princess Diana 20 years ago. Despite its history, the Church of England does not encourage divorce and teaches that marriage is for life.
“But Charles’ complications extend far beyond simple divorce. He has also not only gone on to marry, but to marry a divorcee. While remarrying, as Henry VIII did, is permissible in the church if the couple’s former spouses are deceased, it is far less clear when a former spouse is still living. That was the case with Camilla Parker Bowles, who divorced from her first husband in 1995. It was a situation that forced King Edward VIII to abdicate, the only British sovereign to do so voluntarily, less than a year into his reign in 1936 so that he could marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson.
“Fortunately for Charles, the Church of England altered its stance in 2002, decreeing that in ‘certain circumstances’ a divorced person may marry again during the lifetime of a former spouse. Still, when Prince Charles came to marry Camilla in 2005, he did so in a civil ceremony rather than a church. That’s because not only was he marrying a divorcee, but he was marrying a divorcee with whom he had committed adultery. In a 1994 interview, Charles admitted to infidelity during his marriage with Diana…
“A year later, Diana gave her own hugely publicized interview in which, when asked if Camilla was a factor in the breakdown of the marriage she said ‘there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.’ The public agreed. Even 10 years after the interview, shortly before Charles and Camilla were due to wed, one poll indicated that 65 percent of Britons blamed Camilla for the break-up of Charles and Diana’s marriage.
“… it was stated before the ceremony that Camilla would not take the title of queen when Charles took the throne. Yet, while many now support him becoming king, for some, he will be an uncomfortable ‘Defender of the Faith.’”
Great Britain would be much better off with Prince William as the next monarch. Prince Charles would indeed be a controversial figure, but on the other hand, he would reflect and mirror quite accurately the immoral and ungodly conditions in Great Britain.
The Fear of World War III and Terrorist Attacks
The Independent wrote on January 7:
“With superpowers backing different sides in the bloody conflict in Syria, Isis continuing to fight in the Middle East, a spate of terrorist attacks across the globe and Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump both talking a tough game, the YouGov survey of 9,000 people across nine countries found popular opinion thinks world peace has rarely been further away.
“People in the US were most likely to predict a world war, while French, German and British people were also pessimistic. Some 64 per cent of Americans think the world is close to a major war, compared to just 15 who think world peace is likely. Britons are only slightly more hopeful: 19 per cent believe peace is possible but 61 per cent say war is a distinct possibility.
“The same survey revealed people in Europe and America tended to see Russia as a major military threat, with British people the most fearful of Moscow… Some 71 per cent of Britons feel threatened by Russia…
“In every nation except Finland, those surveyed thought a terrorist attack in their country was more likely than unlikely in the next year. French people were most concerned about terrorism, with 81 per cent believing an attack would happen compared to just 11 per cent predicting there would be none. An attack was also predicted by a large majority of people in Britain, Germany and the US.”
The Danger of Nuclear Missiles
The Independent wrote on January 6:
“A group of arms control experts has urged President Barack Obama to take America’s nuclear weapons off a state of high alert before Donald Trump takes office to stop him ‘impulsively blowing up the planet.’… It said the ever-present risk of a nuclear exchange being triggered erroneously, combined with Mr Trump’s incendiary comments and temperament, could risk the ‘worst disaster imaginable’. The demand has received the support of politicians, retired military officers and government officials…
“The President-elect has startled policy observers by his calls to expand America’s nuclear arsenal, to encourage countries such as South Korea to develop its own weapons and even his apparent willingness to engage in an arms race…
“The group, which is made up of scientists and policy experts, has for many years urged Mr Obama to take US weapons off high alert. They argue having almost 1,000 land-based missiles ready to launch in minutes is a dangerous holdover from the Cold War…
“Indeed, keeping them in such a state increases the danger of a missile being launched by mistake. There have been numerous reported incidents over the past 30 years of the US believing it was under attack from the Russians, only to discover – with just minutes before a potential counter-strike – the ‘Russian launch’ was in truth a computer glitch or else a Scandinavian weather satellite… ‘President Trump will be able to launch, within minutes, one or one thousand nuclear warheads without any vote, any check, or even any serious deliberation. Just one missile could kill millions. Once launched, the missiles could not be recalled.’’
Dangerous European Decision Against Religious “Freedom”
The Daily Mail wrote on January:
“Muslim students will now have to take part in mixed-gender swimming lessons, even after the European Court of Human Rights said that religious freedoms were being interfered with. Switzerland won a case at the ECHR on Tuesday after a ruling said that authorities were justified in saying that mixed-gender swimming lessons were part of a ‘full school curriculum’ and the children’s ‘successful integration’ into society.
“While the ECHR did say that religious freedoms were being interfered with in the lessons, judges said unanimously that the interference did not amount to a violation… The law involved with the right for freedom of religion… was made ‘to protect foreign pupils from any form of social exclusion,’ the ECHR said in a statement.
“The court said that schools are important for social integration… Exemptions, the ECHR said, are ‘justified only in very exceptional circumstances’. ‘Accordingly, the children’s interest in a full education, thus facilitating their successful social integration according to local customs and mores, prevailed over the parents’ wish to have their children exempted from mixed swimming lessons,’ the court said.
“In 2010, the parents had to pay a fine of almost €1,300 (£1,100) ‘for acting in breach of their parental duty’… In 2012, Switzerland’s highest court in Lausanne ruled that the obligation to attend mixed-gender swimming lessons was not a violation on religious freedom.”
This decision sets an extremely dangerous precedence. It is clearly driven by political “correctness” and contains objectionable language to justify the desired results. When Muslims can be told today to violate their religious convictions, then tomorrow true Christians might be told the same thing, compelling their children to participate in abominable sex education classes or pagan religious activities at the times of Christmas and Easter. It is already very difficult to obtain an excuse from school attendance for the children of true Christians during the biblically-commanded annual Holy Days.
Mammograms Leading to Over-Diagnosis and Overtreatment for “Breast Cancer”
Thomson/Reuters reported on January 10:
“Widespread breast cancer screening may catch more small, slow-growing tumors that are unlikely to be fata…, a Danish study suggests… The current study offers fresh evidence linking routine screening to over-diagnosis of non-aggressive tumors… ‘Overdiagnosis means that healthy women get unnecessary breast cancer diagnoses,’ said lead study author Dr. Karsten Juhl Jorgensen, of the Nordic Cochrane Center and Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen. ‘A breast cancer diagnosis is a life-changing event for the woman and her family, with substantial implications for their quality of life,’ Jorgensen added by email. ‘It also leads to overtreatment with surgery, radiotherapy and sometimes chemotherapy – we know these treatments have serious, sometimes lethal, consequences.’
“… researchers examined data on more than 1.4 million Danish women aged 35 to 84 from 1980 to 2010… [The results raise] doubts about whether mammography reduces breast cancer deaths, the researchers conclude. In addition, researchers estimate that as many as one in three breast tumors diagnosed in women who got mammograms would never have caused a noticeable health problem or led to death – and are therefore examples of overdiagnosis… the study adds compelling evidence that routine mammograms carry a risk of overdiagnosis…
“Beyond screening, there are other preventive measures women shouldn’t overlook like eating well, getting plenty of exercise, and maintaining a healthy weight… So for now, that means accepting that overdiagnosis and screening go hand in hand, along with the potential for some women to get unnecessary treatment.”
We are not taking any position for or against cancer screening, but we are cautioning against blindly accepting and undergoing unnecessary and potentially very dangerous overtreatment.
