Thursday, April 7, 2016

U.S. Putting Troops In Philippines Due To China Concerns, Putin Denounces 'Panama Papers' As U.S. Plot To Destabilize Russia

U.S. putting troops in Philippines due to China concerns

U.S. officials are growing concerned about Chinese posturing in the South China Sea, so they have decided to deploy troops to five military bases in the Philippines.

The Pentagon is set to make a “sizeable” investment in the projects to boost capacity, as reported by International Business Times. The U.S. will form “permanent logistics facilities to support rotational deployments,” according to Air Force Times. The Marine Corps. will also be involved.
Previously, the Philippine government objected to U.S. military presence, but now they welcome it, due to the Chinese actions in the region.  Several other countries also claim areas in the South China Sea, including Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam.
China has denied any wrongdoing, claiming the airstrips they have built on the artificial islands in the South China Sea are for humanitarian purposes only.  When Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Washington last fall, he also promised his country did not want to militarize.

The last few days days have been rife with speculation about the motivation, if any, behind the release of the Panama Papers, with the most prominent example coming from Wikileaks two days ago on Twitter which accused the journalist consortium behind the leak, the ICIJ, of being a "Washington DC based Ford, Soros funded soft-power tax-dodge which has a WikiLeaks problem" and adding that "PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros."

As we further suggested, the fact that none other than Rothschild, which is trying to corner the US-based "tax haven" sector, stands to benefit from the collapse of the Panama offshoring industry (as international clients who demand to maintain their anonymous status are forced to move to the US), may lead to further questions about a potential conflict of interest behind said release. 
But while these and many other questions will remain unanswered, including why the ICIJ is cherrypicking which names to release especially as pertains to US clients of the Panamanian law firm, earlier today Russian president Putin made his first public announcement on the topic of the Panama Papers. 

Acording to AP, Putin denied having any links to offshore accounts and described the Panama Papers document leaks scandal as "part of a U.S.-led plot to weaken Russia." Putin described the allegations as part of the U.S.-led disinformation campaign waged against Russia in order to weaken its government. "They are trying to destabilize us from within in order to make us more compliant," he said.

"So here we've got some friend of the Russian president, he has done something, probably there is an aspect of corruption to it... But what aspect [exactly]? Well, there is none," Putin said on Thursday, addressing a media forum in St. Petersburg. He also pointed out that he himself had not been mentioned in the leaked documents.
"You are all journalists here and you know what an informational product is... They've plowed through offshore [funds]. [Putin] is not there, there is nothing to talk about. But the task has been assigned! So what have they done? They've created an informational product by having found some acquaintances and friends," the president told the media forum.

According to Putin, the Panama Papers episode is yet another attempt to destabilize Russia from within, and make it "more agreeable."
Putin contended that Washington has fanned allegations of Russian official corruption in order to weaken Moscow as the U.S. has become concerned about Russia's growing economic and military might.

Episode 7 – Panama At Low Tide | The Illusion Of Our Reality

Without intuition and feeling, people just see Mr Putin. You will not question any of the stuff that your droned newsreader guy programs your brain with, because he’s also Mr Intuition. So, someone who has realized, through usually a crisis in their lives that there’s a thing called “intuition” starts to use it. Bare in mind, a lot of the people using it don’t even know what it is either. But at least they’re awake to the “feeling” of looking further. That’s how it works. A data leak of epic proportions like the “Pandemonium Papers” SHOULD trigger a data drop of intuition. I’m extremely happy that these Alternative Media people are already using it. How many will feel the other data drop ? Well, that remains to be seen. 
But what I’ve been seeing is, many people are just ignoring the “Pandemonium Papers”. Could that mean that humanity has been slowly downloading the “Intuition Papers” over time ? If so, is it just a matter of time before the eventual discovery of the “funders” of the “Pandemonium Papers” are seen in clear view ? If that happens, what that means to me is, the vault door has been opened and maybe, just maybe, humanity is awakening from their memorizing slumber. It’s not going to be overnight but, people I know of in the Alternative Media are seeing an increase in subscriptions and views to their sites.
I wonder if humanity is starting to realize, subconsciously, that they out number the “Funders”. After all, the “Funders” themselves are becoming less and less as, we who research weed out the illegitimate Patsy’s like leaders of countries and wealthy individuals. Could this data drop have backfired for these REAL Elites ? I believe it did ! When you drop this much dirt on your competition, you then leave yourself completely open to be in full view. For you have actually taken away the massive distractions that cloud the judgment of people, leaving the Canal WIDE OPEN for you to be seen in full view. And that is what has just happened – The water ran out of the lock exposing those who were NOT named, marooned on an island reef with sharp coral surrounding them. And that sharp coral……is humanity with eyes wide open, staring directly at who is left. In this case, the ones who stand there, with the most toys and the REAL funds, just lost.

Texas Leads 26-State Coalition Against Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty

Last week Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a brief with the Supreme Court representing a coalition of 26 states who reject Obama’s mandate to prevent deporting nearly 5 million illegals and also give them temporary work permits. The Supreme Court will hear the case on April 18, 2016.
“The Obama Administration has consistently demonstrated disregard for the rule of law in asserting that it has the legal authority to unilaterally change the immigration policy of the United States,” Paxton said in a statement. “Rewriting national immigration law requires the full and careful consideration of Congress, not the political will and assertion of one person. As the president himself said numerous times, he alone does not have the authority to grant millions of unauthorized aliens a host of benefits, including work authorization.”

Obama instructed government agencies not to follow existing immigration law in November, 2014. But, on the night before Obama’s illegal program was about to be implemented in February, 2015, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen blocked it. A complicated legal process followed in the lower courts, and in November, 2015, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld Judge Hanin’s ruling.

The 99-page legal brief argues that Obama’s unilateral actions impose an undue and unfair economic burden on the state of Texas, and all states, by compelling it to issue drivers licenses and other benefits to illegals, not to mention a host of other legal issues.

At issue:
  • Did Obama violate a federal statute, the Administrative Procedure Act?
  • Did Obama violate the separation of powers clauses outlined in the U.S. Constitution?
  • According to the Constitution, can the Executive Branch unilaterally decide whether or not to enforce broad aspects of immigration law, or any laws for that matter?

According to the Houston Chronicle, the brief was filed in response to the justices specifically asking the parties “to address the constitutional implications of the president’s executive action and whether it violates the separation of powers.”
In the brief, Paxton reiterates the coalition’s arguments, that Obama should have sought public comment because “public interest in providing input on one of the largest immigration policy changes in the nation’s history is extraordinarily high.” And, Obama’s plan is a mandate, not discretionary, according to each application, which means that the policy requires Congressional approval.

No comments: