Robot nurses join Texas hospital staff to assist with patient care

 

Edward Griffin: The Creature of Jekyll Island, The Current State of the World, & WW3

Rumors of War, Readiness of Heart – Matthew 24:6

‘Is Trump Dead?’ Rumors Debunked As Trump Seen Leaving For Golf

Pope Francis hints he may retire

Pope Francis hints he may retire

By Associated Press

May 15, 2018 | 9:32am

Getty Images

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis says he has thought about when it might be time to “take leave” of his flock.

Francis made the comment during his morning homily Tuesday; the Vatican didn’t release the full text.

Francis was reflecting on St. Paul discerning when to leave his flock in the care of others, a decision Francis said all bishops must make.

He said: “When I read this, I think about myself, because I’m a bishop and I’ll have to take my leave.”

Francis has said retired Pope Benedict XVI “opened a door” to future popes by resigning. While the 81-year-old pope has said he didn’t envisage a long papacy, he hasn’t said explicitly if he’d retire.

Francis may have also been referring to Chilean bishops implicated in a sex abuse cover-up scandal.


Source

Stephen Bohr - A Retirement Explanation

secretsunsealed

Published on Jun 5, 2015

.

.

Admission by Pastor Gambetta that the Pope's (Bergoglio) brother being Adventist was incorrect

El hermano del Papa (Admission by Gambetta that the Pope's brother being adventist was incorrect).



jumanous

Published on Aug 12, 2013

Finally the truth on this topic is out. Thank you for all who have sought for the truth on this topic. If you can't understand Spanish, click the closed captions button. But this story is now confirmed incorrect by the brother who presented the video.

http://www.godslastwarning.com

.

.

Internet Rumors Spark Fear of Mid-Atlantic Disaster

Reported by: Brandon Stover

Web Producer: Brandon Stover
Reported: Sep. 27, 2013 9:24 PM EDT
Updated: Sep. 27, 2013 10:45 PM EDT


Charleston , Kanawha County , West Virginia

Some people are preparing for a major disaster in the mid-Atlantic. doing after rumors started circulating that a big event was coming. But is there any truth to those fears?

One of the websites, knowthelies.com, that has caused some concern lately for West Virginians. It suggests that a major disaster of some sort may occur in FEMA Region 3, which includes West Virginia and other mid-Atlantic states. But is it true?

According to a retired state senator, Sheldon R. Songstad of South Dakota, who claims he followed the bread crumb trail of FEMA orders, it is.

However, FEMA issued the following statement, and said nothing was unusual:


FEMA is aware of the speculations surrounding procurement of materials throughout the United States, particularly in the mid-Atlantic region. There is no specific threat, catalyst or alert within FEMA to purchase additional supplies, throughout the year, FEMA routinely purchases material and stockpiles warehouses throughout the country in anticipation of disasters and to have supplies pre-positioned throughout the United States. No unusual or inordinate purchases are being made.

This certainly does not scream concern and, in a world of texting and the Internet, rumors can turn into monsters overnight.

Local residents offered their thoughts on the matter.

"A lot of things you hear on the internet are not true, but some things are," Ernest Chapman, of Montgomery said.

"You can't believe anything on the Internet anyway, so I would take that as a ‘no,’" Whitney Kidd, of Charleston, said.

Regardless of when the next disaster occurs, it's always better to be safe than sorry.


Source
.

Three Things the New Terrorism Threat Does Not Prove

Terrorism



Every national security crisis is an opportunity (to push a political agenda).


By Michael Crowley @CrowleyTIME

Aug. 05, 2013




JIM HOLLANDER / EPA

A United States flag flies behind a tall fence at the United States Consulate General building in Jerusalem, Israel, 03 Aug. 2013.

The current alert over a suspected al Qaeda terror plot, thought to originate from Yemen, has populated the television airwaves with spokesmen for various political agendas, many of them making arguments that range from tenuous to specious. Here’s a quick crib sheet on some of the most dubious claims you’re likely hearing amid the speculative chatter about what sinister plans al Qaeda may have up its sleeve:

1. The NSA’s entire surveillance program is essential. The New York Times is reporting that the current alert is based on an intercepted electronic communication between Pakistan and Yemen. On Sunday said the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee that intercept was part of the NSA’s overseas activities permitted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But an Associated Press story Monday evening quotes an unnamed intelligence official saying that, in the AP’s words, “the controversial NSA programs that gather data on American phone calls or track Internet communications with suspected terrorists played no part in detecting the initial tip.”

Regardless, it seems clear that the agency’s bulk collection of telephone records for every call made within the United States did not play a role here. Even if the communication was a Section 702 intercept, it’s still might not have required the kind of vast overseas data collection the NSA conducts. For now, defenders of the NSA program should stick to arguing that this alert is a reminder that al Qaeda remains dangerous and that we need to maintain strong defenses, even at some cost to civil liberties.

2. Obama’s “weakness” has emboldened terrorists. Some conservatives have argued that Obama has effectively invited this latest terrorist stirring. Former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says Obama has appeared “timid,” “refused to confront radical Islam” and “won’t even use the word terror.” Santorum allowed that Obama is conducting drone strikes, “but that is not a comprehensive policy against radical Islam.” Former Republican Senator Jim DeMint struck a similar note on Sunday, saying that al Qaeda may be a greater threat than it was before 9/11, in part because Obama has sought to “placate” enemies like Iran and Russia. “The perception of weakness in the administration is encouraging this type of behavior,” DeMint added.

Doubtful. Obama’s foreign policy vision has drawn credible critics and left even some allies frustrated. But chances are slim that al Qaeda really cares whether Obama tried to “reset” relations with Moscow or extend a hand to Tehran. The group’s affiliates in northern Africa and the Middle East are thriving amid the chaos of the Arab Spring, and through a smart understanding that they can be more deadly as semi-autonomous splinter groups now that al Qaeda’s group’s core leadership in Pakistan has been decimated (thanks, by the way, to Obama’s approval of a relentless–and controversial–drone campaign).

3. Obama prematurely declared the war on terror over. After Obama’s broad counter-terrorism address in May, which included modest new restrictions on U.S. drone strikes, conservatives were dismayed: “He has now declared the war on terrorism over,” groused House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton charged that Obama had admitted “defeat” in the fight against al Qaeda.

No, he didn’t. Obama’s speech actually disappointed some liberals actually might like to see Obama declare an end to the terror war–not as a matter of defeatism, but as a step towards policies that rely less on killing and more on capture and prosecution in the criminal justice system.

Instead, Obama warned that the al Qaeda threat “has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11.” As I noted on Friday, he went on to warn of more localized threats,” as he put it, “against Western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets.” In other words, exactly the kind of threat we facing today.

Perhaps overly inflated expectations with his frequent boasts during last year’s campaign about killing Osama bin Laden and putting al Qaeda “on the run.” But there’s very little sign he’s backed away from the fight against Islamic radicals. (Indeed, the U.S. carried out at least three drone strikes in Yemen late last month.) And why would he? Even if you suspect that Obama, in his gut, doesn’t like killing bad guys overseas, there’s almost nothing a rational president should fear more than presiding over a preventable terrorist attack. It’s silly for his critics to pretend otherwise.

Update: This item has been revised to reflect that the intercepted foreign communication was reportedly electronic and not a “call,” and some related language has been changed. It was further updated to reflect the AP’s subsequent reporting.


Source: http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/05/three-things-the-new-terrorism-threat-does-not-prove/#ixzz2b9O91guM
.

The character assassination of Hillary Clinton

Kathleen ParkerOpinion Writer


By Kathleen Parker, Published: January 1


The new year began not with a cannonball off the “fiscal cliff” but with an outbreak of conspiratorial cynicism.

This time it’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose fall and concussion, followed by a blood clot between her brain and skull, has prompted an embarrassment of theories. The gist: That woman will do anything to avoid testifying about Benghazi.

Several commentators on the right opined via Twitter and TV, those most deadly hosts for the parasites of rumor and innuendo, that Clinton was faking her concussion to duck out on her appearance before congressional committees investigating the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

An independent report published last monthplaced substantial responsibility for the deaths on the State Department. Not only was security at the Benghazi compound weak, relying heavily on local forces with conflicting loyalties, but requests for additional security apparently were ignored or denied.

The sentiment that Clinton might not wish to testify on the matter is not without reason. It is hard to imagine the agony of knowing that one’s lack of vigilance may have contributed to four deaths. But the attacks on Clinton during her illness, essentially attacks on her character, have been cruel and unfair. What must the world think of us?

Clinton, who fainted as a result of dehydration after a bout of flu, hit her head and suffered a concussion, after which a blood clot was discovered. She had to be hospitalized while blood-thinning medications were administered and monitored.

Although her critics backed off once the clot was reported, initial responses ranged from “She’s faking” to demands for proof of her concussion.

One writer demanded her medical records. John Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations, called Clinton’s affliction a “diplomatic illness” to avoid testifying about Benghazi. Later he suggested that details were skimpy in an effort to protect her potential 2016 presidential run.

“I think it’s the too-cute-by-half approach that’s reflected in the absence of transparency that’s going to end up damaging her and damaging her credibility,” he said on Fox News.

Again, Clinton may well prefer to miss her day before the firing squad, but it is unlikely that doctors or a hospital would assist a secretary of state — or anyone — in concocting a fake affliction.

Besides, you can’t have it every which way. Immediately after the Benghazi attacks, Clinton took full responsibility for the events and was accused by Republicans of falling on her sword to protect President Obama. Now that she’s temporarily indisposed and unable to elaborate on her admitted responsibility, those same critics insist she’s trying to avoid taking personal responsibility.

The viciousness of the pundit class is disheartening and disgusting. And these days everyone’s a pundit. Got an opinion? Why, step right up to the microphone. If you’re “good TV,” you too can be a “contributor.”

Out in the hinterlands, where Americans consume “news” that suits their political proclivities, opinions are formed on the basis of what-he-said. Reputations and lives are ruined on the tines of pitchforks glimmering in the light of torch-bearing mobs. And those are just the “news” shows.

One doesn’t have to be a fan of Hillary Clinton, though a Bloomberg poll says that two-thirds of Americans are, to feel tainted by the relish with which she and many others have been attacked — unfairly and disproportionately. Susan Rice, who was Obama’s favorite to replace Clinton as secretary of state, comes to mind.

But this isn’t a problem only for women or Democrats. The rush to character assassination seems to be our only bipartisan imperative and is a blight on our political system. In this brooding age of superstition and portent, every misspoken word is a lie, every human error a hanging offense.

This is to suggest not that we be naive or credulous but that we seek some balance in our approach to discovery. At the moment, we seem to be ricocheting between hysteria and delusion.

Eventually, Clinton will have to step forward and take her medicine. She is slated to appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in mid-January, though the date hasn’t been set. The nation clearly needs answers on what happened in Benghazi, and no doubt Clinton will provide them.

This is not blind faith in a favored politician but respect for a process that relies on accepted rules of order. We owe our representative to the world — which is to say, ourselves — at least this much.

kathleenparker@washpost.com

Source

.

12-12-2012 - Just Another Day NASA

James Parks

Published on Mar 8, 2012

NASA scientist debunks 2012 end of the world doomsday scenarios.

.

The Beginning of Sorrows

⁶ And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

⁷ For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

⁸ All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Matthew 24

.

Latvia’s largest bank fights off depositor run after rumors of imminent collapse

Posted on December 12, 2011

December 12, 2011 – LATVIA – Latvia’s largest bank scrambled Monday to head off a run among depositors who were gripped by rumors of the bank’s imminent ruin. Weekend rumors that Swedbank was facing legal and liquidity problems in Estonia and Sweden sent thousands of Latvians to bank machines on Sunday, with some lines reaching as many as 50 people. Latvians are particularly sensitive to speculation about banks’ health. Latvijas Krajbanka, the country’s 10th largest bank, was nationalized last month after regulators discovered evidence of massive fraud allegedly carried out by the bank’s former owner, Russian businessman Vladimir Antonov. Depositors were deprived of access to their funds for days. And three years ago the country’s second largest bank, Parex Bank, entered technical default and had to be taken over by the government, which in turn forced Latvia to appeal to international creditors and the European Union for a €7.5 billion ($10.5 billion) bailout. Prime Minister Vladis Dombrovskis told journalists that the rumors were spread maliciously with the intent to harm Latvia’s banking system, the Baltic News Service reported. Interior Minister Rihards Kozlovskis said that police have opened a criminal investigation. The rumors were contained to Latvia and did not spread to neighboring Estonia and Lithuania, which also have affiliates of the Swedish-controlled Swedbank. Maris Mancinskis, Swedbank’s Latvian chief, slammed the rumors as “absurd” and said in a statement that the bank was functioning normally and that all deposit holders would have full access to their money via bank machines and branch offices. Mancinskis told LNT television that the rumors started last week and proliferated over the weekend, culminating in Sunday’s rush to bank machines. -CBC

Source