by Ruby Henley
I have started several reports today, but each time I get into one, the next one begs me to look. “Here, here, look at me…I am more important than he is…do me!” That is what I have heard all day and evening. I have no idea how I am going to fit all of this into into one report, but I am. Just bear with me, and forgive me for jumping from one subject to the next. Everything I have learned is important and must be said.
First of all, we are at war. If you watch the following video, you will understand…you will feel it. President Trump always speaks about his military, and there is a good reason for that. We are at war! President Trump is the most courageous President we have ever had…make no mistake about it.
We would be overwhelmed if we knew the extent of what he is really doing in taking our Country back from the Deep State. The Deep State would rather destroy every American in this Country than to let We The People have what is ours. President Trump’s State of Union Address was a direct message to them about who this great Country belongs to. He told them directly it belonged to the American people…not what they wanted to hear.
Now, please take a moment to watch this video:
Feel it and feel proud. Understand that force is under the power of the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. That force is keeping him alive, yes, literally it is. President Trump is in a lot of danger right now. All Patriots are….bottom line. Stay alert, and prepare.
Here is a post from QAnon which might help you to understand the danger President Trump is in.
- Jan 22 2018 21:47:32
What would happen if texts originating from a FBI agent to several [internals] discussed the assassination (possibility) of the POTUS or member of his family?
What if the texts suggest foreign allies were involved?
Forget the Russia set up [1 of 22].
This is only the beginning.
Be careful what you wish for.
AS THE WORLD TURNS.
Could messages such as those be publicly disclosed?
What happens to the FBI?
What happens to the DOJ?
What happens to special counsel?
What happens in general?
Every FBI/DOJ prev case could be challenged.
We haven’t started the drops re: human trafficking / sacrifices [yet][worst].
Those [good] who know cannot sleep.
Those [good] who know cannot find peace.
Those [good] who know will not rest until those responsible are held accountable.
Nobody can possibly imagine the pure evil and corruption out there.
Those you trust are the most guilty of sin.
Who are we taught to trust?
If you are religious, PRAY.
60% must remain private [at least] – for humanity.
These people should be hanging.
False flags abound…left and right. The train wreck involving the GOP was a false flag. The bad guys are manipulating trains with remote control drones. This is not a game.
- Feb 1 2018 00:23:55
>>230980 (last bread)
>Obviously the train slowed down so must have been warned…
I think it was warned.
Helicopter surveillance saw the truck and warned the engineer.
I’m guessing truck was kitty korner between the crossbucks with the back end (dumpster lift hydraulics boom) facing the oncoming train.
Train hits boom, spins truck around and rips body off the cab, leaving the cab at the crossing. Train drags truck body down the tracks until the body rolls off down the embankment.
Question is, if truck tried to run crossing, why didn’t occupants flee cab when getting stuck, unless train hit the truck just as it was trying to run the crossing.?
Have to figure, though, if aerial surveillance sees truck and warns engineer, the truck had to have been there for a while, so why didn’t occupants flee?
If the truck was there as a plant, the only sense I can make of it is that the occupants were patsies, i.e., they were told they were only going to force the train to stop, on the idea of an antifa protest.
I don’t think surveillance would see a truck headed towards the crossing and tell the engineer to brake, assuming the truck would stop on the tracks. However, it could be that the access road was closed and any traffic was regarded as a danger.
Key is how fast does an amtrak train usually go through there, and how fast was this one going. If this train was slower, then why?
Feb 1 2018 00:27:49
Rejoice in the release of the FISA MEMO. It is a great accomplishment for President Trump, but it is only the beginning. The battlefield is closer than ever, and the gap between good and evil is wider than ever. It is very clear who the bad guys are now, and they clearly know who the good guys are.
I want to move on and talk about the FISA RENEWAL WHICH OCCURRED ON JANUARY 17, 2018.
Before we do that, to understand all about what President Trump and the Country is facing, the links below will connect the dots for you.
The following video will help you to understand everything that is happening now..
Here is a link to all the sealed indictments.
Don’t forget about Trump’s Executive Orders.
Now to move on the the FISA RENEWAL WHICH OCCURRED ON JANUARY 17, 2018.
Here is the actual transcript from the proceedings.
I read the whole thing, and I was enlightened to say the least. I want to say President Trump was opposed to the quick renewal, but he could not stop it. There are some passages it is absolutely imperative that you read. I will quote from the proceedings what I think you need to read.
- I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, the Senate will be voting soon on a bill to reauthorize the FISA Amendments Act. Most Americans likely do not recognize the name of the bill, but they probably know what this bill addresses—our government’s surveillance of communications. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have learned a great deal about our post-9/11 surveillance laws and how they have been implemented, and I have determined that there are reforms that need to be made to the FISA Amendments Act—specifically section 702—before we renew this law. The single biggest flaw in section 702 is how it has been interpreted. The language of the law—the collection of foreign intelligence of U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States—anticipates that incidental or accidental collection of Americans’ emails or even phone calls could occur, but under the FISA Amendments Act as written, there is nothing to prohibit the intelligence community from searching through a pile of communications collected under this statute to deliberately search for the phone calls or the emails of specific Americans. This is not what Congress intended when the law was written, and now we are being asked to vote on this law at the last minute with not a single amendment allowed. Many of us have called this the backdoor search loophole since it allows the government to search for Americans’ communications without a warrant— let me repeat that—without a warrant. The USA Rights Act, of which I am a cosponsor, includes a fix to this loophole. It also includes other key reforms to the statute that I support. But that commonsense bill is not the one on the floor today. The bill before us today would actually take us backward. It doesn’t require a warrant to search for Americans’ communications. It makes it quite easy to resume the ‘‘about’’ collections on Americans—a practice that the government has literally abandoned. It grants new authorities to allow section 702 data to be used in domestic criminal prosecutions of American citizens. I strongly believe that the Federal Government needs a way to monitor foreign communications to ensure that we remain a step ahead of the terrorists and those who would threaten our national security. The FISA Amendments Act has been beneficial to the protection of our national security. I don’t question the value of the foreign intelligence that this law provides. I have seen it with my own eyes. But I also strongly believe that we need to balance the civil liberties embodied in our Constitution with our national security imperatives. It is the responsibility of Congress to find that balance. The bill that is before us today could come closer to that standard if we improve it through the adoption of amendments that I and my colleagues would offer if we had the opportunity. But this bill is being fast-tracked, and we are left with only the choice of an up-or-down vote. The American people deserve better than the legislation before us today. The American people deserve better than warrantless wiretapping. I urge my colleagues to consider the gravity of the issues at hand and to oppose reauthorization until we can have a real opportunity for debate and reform. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe the American people should be deeply concerned about the vote the Senate took yesterday to invoke cloture; in effect, ending real debate and preventing the Senate from considering any amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorization. This isn’t what is called regular order. This isn’t how the Senate ought to operate. In fact, it is not even how the Senate has handled surveillance bills in the past. Even in the weeks after the horrendous attacks of 9/11, the Senate considered amendments to the PATRIOT Act. In 2008, when the Senate first considered section 702, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, there were, in fact, amendments. Now debate has been cut off, and no Senator—neither a Democrat nor a Republican—is going to be allowed to offer an amendment. What the country is going to be left with is a deeply flawed bill that, in a number of ways, is actually worse than current law. I want to talk first about whose rights are at stake. We are talking primarily, at this part of my address, about Americans who talk to foreigners overseas—law-abiding Americans whose communications can get swept up under this law. They could be, for example, American businesspeople—perhaps somebody working for a tech company in Colorado or Oregon or perhaps somebody working for a steel company in the Midwest. These are American businesspeople—law-abiding people— talking to a foreign contact. They could be swept up under this law or we could be talking about first-, second-, or third-generation Americans talking to family and friends still overseas. Maybe they are catching up. Maybe they are talking about kids and grandkids. Maybe they are just talking about their hopes and aspirations, but they are still law-abiding Americans who could get swept up in this bill. We could be talking about American journalists covering foreign stories. We could be talking about U.S. servicemembers talking to foreign friends they made while deployed. Try to get your arms around that one. I think it is particularly unfortunate because one of the things I am proudest of is I was able to ensure that Americans overseas—servicemembers—would have their privacy rights protected. We have a law passed to do that. I remember George W. Bush had reservations about that proposal I made to protect the privacy rights of our law-abiding servicemembers overseas. He originally said he might veto the bill. In the end, it was in his press release saying how great it was, and I think it was because nobody had really talked about the rights of these wonderful men and women who wear the uniform in the United States. We did it right back when George W. Bush was President. We protected the privacy rights of our servicemembers overseas. Now we are talking about walking back the rights of those U.S. servicemembers if they are talking to foreign friends they made while deployed, and we could be talking about American teachers and researchers seeking information from foreigners. Now this body isn’t going to have a chance to even consider reforms that might protect the constitutional rights of these Americans—the businessperson, the servicemember, the first-, second-, or third-generation American immigrant—because what has happened is the Senate is being forced to vote on a reauthorization bill without any public discussion about any kind of alternatives. The one committee consideration—what is called a markup—occurred entirely in secret. That is public law being debated in secret. Yesterday, the Senate discussed whether to cut off debate on a bill that authorizes vast, unchecked surveillance powers in less time than it takes to shop for the week’s groceries. So now, with no amendments possible, there is not going to be a single opportunity for the public to see its representatives explain why they are supporting or why they are rejecting these key reforms. You can only conclude from this that opponents of reforms were just scared. They were frightened. They just didn’t want to have them debated in the open. They must be worried that the more Americans understand about the program—and the more they hear about commonsense, bipartisan proposals to fix it—the more the public is going to say we can do better. We can do better than the status quo because the public, once they have the benefit of a little transparency and a little open debate, what I have seen—and I just finished my 865th open-to-all town meeting at home in Oregon. Once you talk to folks at home about these issues, they understand that security and liberty aren’t mutually exclusive; that sensible policies get you both and not-so- sensible policies and failure to look at the issues really get less of both. My view is the Senate let down the American people yesterday. In my view, we have a solemn obligation to deliberate, to consider amendments, and to vote up or down. I think that is really what the Senate is all about. One of the worst arguments for jamming this bill through without amendments was that somehow this law was going away. It just wouldn’t be around. It was expiring. First, Members who wanted to debate reforms were prepared to go to this floor many months ago. Nothing stood in the way of a floor debate last year. Even today, there is no reason to rush all this through. Absolutely nothing prevents the Congress from extending 702 authorities for a week or two to allow us to carry out our constitutional responsibilities. By the way, the Director of National Intelligence has said publicly and on the record that its authorities continue until April. I was stunned. I had Senators on both sides of the aisle whom I like very much—good, dedicated Senators—saying: Oh, my goodness, we have to act. If we don’t act in the next few days, oh, my goodness, powerful tools we need to stop the terrorists—and I will not take a backseat to anybody in terms of stopping the terrorists—they are going to be gone. That is just not true. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an article with the statement from the Office of National Intelligence, where the Director said on the record that its authorities would continue.
- This end-run is not just about the collection. It is that, after all the communications of our people are swept up, the government can go searching for individual Americans through all that data. They don’t have to be suspected of anything. The government just has to decide on its own that your private communications might reveal some intelligence or some evidence of a crime, and like the collection of the communications, that search can take place without a warrant—no warrant on the collection of Americans’ communications, no warrant on searching for individual Americans. This is a case of two wrongs certainly not making a right. What the Senate did last night was prevent any debate on this basic constitutional question. The USA Rights Act, introduced by 15 Senators of both parties, would have required a warrant for those searches of Americans. Our colleagues Senator LEAHY and Senator LEE have legislation requiring a warrant—a Democrat and a Republican. Other Members have had their own proposals. None of them are going to get heard by the Senate. We had a chance to consider amendments. We could have fixed the underlying bill, which doesn’t require any warrants for any searches for Americans. Let me just repeat that. The underlying bill does not require any warrants for any searches for Americans— none, not in intelligence cases, not in criminal cases. Warrantless fishing expeditions for Americans can just go on and on and on. The bill’s so-called reform only applies to the government’s access to the results of the searches, but it really doesn’t even do that. It only kicks in if the government is already well down the road of investigating somebody. This means the bill provides more rights to criminal suspects than to innocent Americans. Think about what that is going to mean in Texas or Oregon or North Carolina or anywhere else in the country. As I have described it, this bill provides more rights to criminal suspects than to innocent Americans. It gets worse because the bill is even narrower than that. It imposes no limitations at all if the government determines the search relates to national security or to a criminal matter that has anything at all to do with national security. Why are opponents of reform happy now? Because their bill does nothing. I went and read the Director of National Intelligence’s statistics for 2016. The CIA and the National Security Agency conducted over 5,000 warrantless searches for Americans, according to this material. It doesn’t include the FBI, whose searches are supposedly too numerous to even count. It doesn’t include communications records, which number in the tens of thousands. How many times does the government encounter a situation in which, under this bill, there would even be the possibility of needing a warrant? Exactly one—that is right—one among the thousands and thousands of warrantless searches for Americans. There are certainly many Members of Congress who share my concerns who have devoted much of their career to ensuring that Americans have security and liberty. I want to especially express my appreciation to Senators PAUL and LEE. They have been tireless champions. Chairman LEAHY has led on this critical matter for decades. Senator HEINRICH, my seatmate on the Intelligence Committee, is one of this body’s rising stars because he is willing to dig deeply into the issues. In the House, 183 Members voted for the most comprehensive section 702 reform bill, the House version of the USA RIGHTS Act. As we saw last night—and the President of the Senate and I were involved in a lot of those deliberations down here in the well of the Senate— this was a very close vote. A lot of people say: Well, the reformers are going to say their piece, and they are going to get 6, 8, 10 votes and the like. I think, last night, we really brought home what I hear Americans say, Democrats, Republicans—by the way, many Independents—who have questions about the way the government works and want to see their liberties protected in a way that also keeps them safe, and a big group of Members in the other body. And last night, a big group of Senators said: What a quaint idea. Let’s have the U.S. Senate be the U.S. Senate. Let’s have a few amendments. It was communicated to the leaders. I want to thank Senator SCHUMER for making it clear that he thought that some amendments would make this a better, fuller, and more complete debate. I think it is very unfortunate, with the fact that there are so many important issues here—it is an important bill. I hope people have seen that—having spent a lot of time on these issues over the years, I think we really need to have more time spent on this floor getting a chance to debate these issues, having Senators of both parties work in good faith, work toward constructive solutions. I think support for what we sought last night, which is a real debate and real solutions and actual amendments—I think more and more Americans are coming around to see that is the way to proceed because Americans aren’t going to buy the idea that, well, we will just say you have to give up some of your liberty to have security. Ben Franklin said it very well: Anybody who gives up their liberty to have security doesn’t really deserve either.
There is more, but I believe the above passages are the most important parts spoken. So you see we have far to go. Stay alert, focus, use your head, and be safe.
Before I close I want to mention something very interesting, and I, too, want to say I have found a great new website you must frequent. americandigitalnews.com/2018/01/29/g4s-superbowl-security-company/#.WnfKi0xFzBU
I want to talk about the fact that the firm GRS that was just hired to do Superbowl security has a link to the Las Vegas Massacre. Jesus Campos worked for GRS. GRS has had some interesting employees through the years.
- Jesus Campos, the secretive security guard who was on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Hotel at the time of the Las Vegas shootings. Campos was not registered in Las Vegas as a guard but was internationally registered G4S security which is international and used by the federal government deep state for clandestine mercenary strikes.
- – Omar Mateen, the gay Muslim gunman who killed 49 people last year at Orlando Pulse nightclub
- – James Wesley Howell, who was headed to a gay pride event in California on the same day as the Orlando massacre when he was arrested by police after they found a loaded assault rifle and chemicals mixed and ready to explode in his car.
- – Kevin James Loibl, who killed Orlando singer Christine Grimme, on the Friday night before the Omar Mateen slaughter.
- – The San Bernadino shooters Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik as well as Enrique Marquez, their close friend who purchased the two assault rifles used in the shooting
- – Alpha Mohamed Jalloh, the FBI informant and prime suspect in the murder of Seth Rich.
So it must be an interesting place to work. Here is an interesting fact:
This is stranger than fiction to say the least. I think I should add another source here to back up what the above website has said about the security company GRS.
“In the case of G4S I have found that it is a British security firm that operates in over 100 countries with over 600,000 employees. It has a checkered past to say the least. It had to pay millions of dollars to the British Government for its failure to provide security to the 2012 Olympics in England. This failure caused the British government to have to deploy thousands of troops to provide adequate security. There have also been other scandals involving the company.
G4S acquired a U.S. Security firm named Wackenhut Corp. that also has a questionable history and made it a subsidiary company named G4S Security Solutions USA Inc. This is the company that actually employed Mateen who became an employee in 2007. The U.S. affiliate initially claimed to know nothing about any FBI questioning of Mateen however finally admitted that it was aware of the first FBI investigation of Mateen, but not the second. The company also claims to know nothing about the terroristic threat Mateen made that were reported by one of his fellow employees. FOX News interviewed this former employee, Daniel Gilroy, who confirmed his allegations, and G4S refused Fox News requests for a response. However, the firm relieved him of duties as a security guard at a Florida courthouse because people complained about his negative comments about women and his Jews and his expressions of admiration for the radical Muslim that killed 13 American soldiers and wounded 32 others at Fort Hood, Texas.
So this where it gets scary; G4S has contracts with numerous federal agencies including the State Department, Departments of Interior, Labor, Justice, Energy as well as the IRS, DEA, Homeland Security. It has also been hired by the U.S. Army, Air Force, and NASA. As a result, G4S has worked on projects at Guantanamo Bay, and provides security services for over 50 American embassies around the world, 90 percent of the nuclear facilities in the United States, as well as numerous prisons and juvenile detention facilities around the country.
In the case of the contract with DHS the G4S has a rather unique job. It is providing secure transport for people have entered the United States illegally and are OTMs, (from countries other than Mexico) to sanctuary cities in the United States. In other words, people who have already violated U.S. laws by entering our country illegally and who are from Central American countries or from the Middle East and could be gang members, drug dealers, or even terrorists are provided with a free pass into our cities with no questions asked.
This means that G4S is an active participant in the Obama administration and DHS efforts to violate U.S. immigration laws, the U.S. Constitution, and a federal court order. This is placing Americans around the country in danger of being subjected to criminal activity, and more possible terrorism like that which just occurred in Orlando.
When it comes to providing security for U.S. embassies G4S had an epic failure in 2011 at the embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan when underpaid local security guards hired by G4S went on strike. They were immediately replaced by new local guards that were not subjected to any background checks. The embassy was severally at risk until the company finally agreed to increase the pay of the strikers.
Now we have an employee of G4S that has committed a major atrocity against Americans by killing and injuring almost 100 innocent people, yet continued to be employed by the company despite the fact that there had been two FBI investigations of him, a complaint by a fellow employee that he made statements indicating he was a dangerous individual, and his documented involvement with an American jihadist who was ultimately a suicide bomber in Syria.
If G4S allowed an obvious security risk like Omar Mateen to continue to be and employee one has to wonder how many others like him are out there guarding prisons, nuclear sites, embassies, and other sensitive government facilities. One also has to wonder why the federal agencies that employ this company and continues to pay it millions of tax dollars, seem oblivious to the problem.
However, this also raises another and more insidious question. Are the actions of G4S just the failure of a private company employed by our government or is it the result of political correctness run amok. Was Mateen allowed to continue to work for the company and have a license to carry firearms because the company was prohibited by our government from firing him, despite the clear danger he represented, because he was a Muslim.”
In conclusion, I hope you received information from this report you consider to be valuable. I felt it connects present day events, and it amazed me after my journey around the Internet today that the connection existed. It is all apart of taking back our Country, and it is serious and deadly business. God bless us all.