Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress


Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Robert Steele: Notre Dame Cathedral Burning a False Flag

Robert Steele: Notre Dame Cathedral Burning a False Flag, with Complicity of the Pope, Organized by Macron, Merkel, and May, Each a Satanist, with Goal of Saving EU & Central Banks  Post 4/16/2019

"I was  devastated by the total burning of Notre Dame cathedral, a place where I once prayed for one of my son’s who survived what might otherwise have been a certain death. The parallels to both the Reichstag Fire and 9/11 loomed. Then I heard from the shadow foreign minister of France and I believe all of the following to be true and an indictment of Macron, Merkel, May, and the Pope — Notre Dame would not have burned as it did without the explicit complicity of the Church — and key police, fire, and government offices in Paris — in detail, in advance, and into the future.
Here is what I have been told by a ranking source in France:"


  1. Incredible article! I knew this was a false flag event, but had no compared it to 9-11. These monsters, need to be brought to justice by the People of this world. Seems like another revolution is necessary, only this time the People against the world's ELITE.

    1. My prayer: the People of the world will hold global tribunals and try these MINISTERS OF EVIL.

  2. An article by RDS. Please scroll down & take a look at the over 200 names on a 4 column spread. These are only some of the names RDS has been keeping track of, as tho they're criminals & RDS is the judge, jury & & hopeful executioner.
    Notice what he says about the lists. Now look at #238 Wink. This is only part of his "lists".
    Now ask, what kind of a mind collects names w threats of exposing them, accusing them of gang-stalking? Its exactly the kind of lists we're threatened w by the DEEP STATE.
    What kind of a mind is this tedious, this obsessed, this retaliatory.... ? Is this the mind of an obsessive compulsive? Of someone policing comments for later "charges"? Like a "pre-crime" list of the communists, fascists sort ? He even refers to these hundreds of individuals as 'gang-stalkers'-??
    Who is actually stalking whom here? Does he keep volumes & volumes of comments, posts, etc of all the hundreds of individuals? Are they 'gang-stalking criminals' or just folks who post things he doesn't like?
    If #238 is this Wink, I can tell you right here & now, Robert David Steele is a threat to all of us, not just to free speech. All done by ONE MAN who is ex-CIA??
    Now lets suppose he actually obtains access to databases of the info he threatens to expose? Is this someone we ought to trust? Or is this someone who is mental, using his 'secret police powers' against those whose speech he simply doesn't like?
    This is extremely grave. Especially of ex-CIA, the creepiest, most corrupt, most threatening, most evil agency in our nation? Even the world?
    Who is mental, here? Who is most threating? When someone shows us who & what they are, believe them. Thanks, #238 WINK.

    1. are you on his list, looks like you are doing a little trolling of him right on this site. I mean you claim it can't be trusted, can you? I have real issues with People who make these type claims. Personally I am not a fan of RDS. But, what I don't do is plant seeds of doubt about people when I have no evidence. that is what trolls do. do you have evidence about RDS?

    2. C. Johnson - THE EVIDENCE IS THE LINK. Hello? Knock-knock? This isn't trolling. And this is exactly the mentality you express which twists the obvious. Blither on, blither on.
      We must expose such acts as RDS proudly displays, exemplifying the deranged hypocrisy to which we have spinelessly become so accustomed. Hundreds, ok, hundreds of names are on his multiple lists upon lists. WHAT KIND OF A MIND DOES THAT? Obsessive, compulsive, retaliatory...??
      And meanwhile exposing this have come upon others were thankful, having discovered their names on his lists. So, I congratulate them for speaking their thoughts, despite threats from X-CIA narcissists & control freaks alleging "thought crimes".
      NO, hundreds upon hundreds of folks are NOT attacking RDS, but in his mind, those who disagree with him, question him, his alliance w the CIA, then Bezos, Amazon & the Open Source Everything ... & suddenly RDS is no longer w Amazon... but CIA did pay Bezos gazillions to spy on us. DO YA THINK MAYBE, JUST MAYBE RDS has a good role in this??
      Then his Unrig campaign attempts w Cynthia McKinney - Pray she wakes up to him, & maybe she has after repeated warnings from so many who couldn't fathom her mental hiccup.
      Then RDS appears in black priest/judges robe on the ITNJ panel,for sex crimes, trafficking against children & adults. Gee, reckon we won't be seeing much justice metered out, but will see lots of panel convening videos, while victims risk exposure... For What? Just another diversionary tactic?

      Now we see McKinney has a role w ITNJ. Kinda getting on our nerves that despite all the production & actors performing their roles STILL NOTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED - NOTHING - Oh lots more videos - (Pretty much the same people who have already been interviewed by ITCCS The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State). Is anyone who gets in the way of SAVING CHILDREN as is questionably being done by ITNJ, are they party to their harm? We are so sick & tired of panels & judges & convenings & promotions & money requests to help save the children & NOTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED.
      To see RDS perched on that pedestal in a black priests robe told us all we needed to know.

      THE EVIDENCE IS THE LINK, try glancing it over.

    3. I looked at your link. I see what he is doing. he call it nefarious, that is your judgment and your opinion, only. However, if you have evidence that anything he is doing with that link is nefarious, prove it. Your opinion, you are entitled to, I am not of the same opinion. I am not a fan of him, but I do not spread my opinion as fact, without evidence, as you do. Your actions are trolling.

    4. C. Johnson - YOU JUST DID. YOU passed judgement w/o seeing the link. Then you saw the link AND DID IT AGAIN. YOU are "spreading you opinion". How is it you apply one thing to others & fail to apply the same to oneself, while claiming you don't? YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN.

    5. WINK WINK, you did not read my comment. I looked at the link. I saw all the names. I saw the stuff on the link. AGAIN, I WILL SAY, THAT IS YOUR OPINION! You opinion when used in such a manner, is trolling. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is not evidence of truth. It is simply your opinion. Do you have the right to express your opinion, absolutely. But, its still a fact, trolling is when you attempt to use your opinion as fact. Your opinion is not fact, it is simply what you think. However, if you have any facts on which your opinion is based, I would love to see them.

    6. wink wink...QUOTING THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE, AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE: "All of this is my personal opinion, not a legal commentary. I believe we are beginning a 1,000 year cycle of peace and prosperity; #GoogleGestapo can reform itself, or it can be replaced. The collective is rising."
      The author and you are entitled to your PERSONAL OPINIONS!

    7. PS. Before you get all blown out of shape....I do know the author is Robert David Steele. Again, I am not a fan and his opinions, like yours and mine are our own! Opinions are like backsides, everyone's got one!

    8. C. Johnson - And? Yes, all of this is about RDS collecting names & making accusations - Which he is responsible for the accusations he claims against hundreds & hundreds of names on his multiple lists. Why do you not see the same of RDS? See how your mind works?
      You are doing the same thing. Accuse others of the very thing you're doing. RDS accuses others in the hundreds of the doing the very same thing that he is doing. This is mental, a hypocrisy.
      Its a very, very common technique of the jews & their sjw's. To flip the very thing they are doing & blame others of doing it. It is an INSANITY.

      This is the point. Now, I've had enough with all of this. The article speaks for itself. And so have I. Thanks.

    9. WINK WINK, you are really trolling now! Your opinion means nothing to me, at all!

    10. wink wink, here's how my mind works: RDS makes accusations of trolls, you make accusations about RDS and me and jews. I simply stated you accusations have no basis in fact, and are simply your opinion. And you are entitled to your accusatory opinions just as RDS is his. The difference is you get ticked when I personally refuse to ACCEPT YOUR OPINION AS BEING FACT. You have failed to provide the facts which supports your opinion. You have no more facts than RDS has about his. Like I said "Opinions are like backsides, everyone has one!' So if your feelings are hurt, because you posted an article making accusations about RDS based on your opinion, there is absolutely nothing I can or will do about your opinion. Again you are entitled to it, but opinions expressed in your comments are not representative of mine. Nor do I give you the right to lay claim or seizure of my opinion. Have an absolute great day!

  3. So now it is all about the banks and conspiracy?
    Not God, not the why, as in part of the previous article? So who is in control, and does the why(in all of this) matter?
    Could part of the problem be putting others first? Not God first?

    Notre Dame is French for "Our Lady" and refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the patroness of the school (many churches and chapels in France are dedicated to her under this name, such as the famous church in Paris, just as in Spanish-speaking countries they are dedicated to "Nuestra Señora").
    Mary (Mother) First is a part of the problem, there is no doubt!

  4. Can I teach some common law, right here and right now? Claims made are nothing more than opinions. Claims are made everyday in courts around the county. However, claims are not facts nor are they facts in law. They are simply claims. However, if a plaintiff wants to make a claim, the burden of proof by facts is upon them. There must be facts:in law to prove the claim.

    Here is a fact in law: private property and the right to use it without govt. interference or infringement or abrogation it is protected and secured by the Constitution, as a right. How do I know it is fact: in law? In less than one minute, on-line I can retrieve the 4th, 5th and 13th amendment and print them off. It is fact and it is indisputable fact: in law. No judge or prosecutor can deny or dispute said fact.

    Here's another fact: in law, Miranda v. Arizona :: 384 U.S. 436 (1966) "Where rights are secured by the Constitution there can be no rule-making or legislation to abrogate them."

    Here's another fact: in law: Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S. Ct. at 544-545 (1987); Westfall v.Erwin, 108 S. Ct. 580 (1987); United States v. Lanier (March 1997) Constitutionally and in fact of law and judicial rulings, state-federal "magistrates-judges" or any government actors, state or federal, may now be held liable, if they violate any Citizen's Constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities, or guarantees; including statutory civil rights. A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity.

    I can tell you with all assuredness, those 3 facts: in law will kill opinions, before a nickel you drop could hit the floor. Opinions are like backsides and every prosecutor has one. SO?

    Now, my question to you, when will you learn facts in law and realize the only way your rights can be taken is if you waive them! Do you know your secured and protected rights? Do you know what they are and do you know how to use them?

    Are you a victim of OPINIONS?

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Ps. I just made a claim involving equal protection of the law: in fact and due process of those laws, would anyone care to dispute my right to make said claim?

    3. FYI, The United States has numerous secured and protected rights to privacy in its statutes and codes. Here's a link to take a look at them.

      My question is, with the RIGHT TO PRIVACY of property and trade, so secured and protected by Constitutions and statutes [U.S. and national] and even International treaty, why are so many People still surrendering their rights to those secured and protected rights?

      Also, International treaty protects the rights to choose nationality and citizenship, why are so many People afraid to make the choice? Anna's paperwork is the means for you, by INTERNATIONAL TREATY which the U.S. is a part, to choose. What are you afraid of?
      You have a lawful right, to live and work as Americans, why aren't you?

    4. Opinions of legal fictions in black dresses are not facts. If you want to play teacher, please use facts, not opinions.

    5. The decision in Barron vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore states that the first 10 amendments apply only to the people of the United States, and not to the people of the union states. The U.S. Supreme Court told Barron to look to the Maryland constitution for protection of his property rights. The 14th Amendment extends some of the protection of the first 10 amendments to the federal citizens created by the adoption of the 14th Amendment, but only insofar as they provide for "due process of law," which has no absolute definition. "Due process" is whatever the dude in the black dress decides it is.

    6. an iconoclast did you read my teachings? No I don't think you did! Maybe you should read them again, before making vain comments.

  5. Joseph, I 90% agree with what you commented. You are absolutely wrong about due process. The issue is not the robed PERSON, it's the PERSON standing in front of the ROBE PERSON. 90% of those standing in front of the ROBED PERSON, don't know what their rights are or how to use them or how to insure due process to themselves. NO ROBED PERSON IS EVER GOING TO GIVE ANYONE RIGHTS, IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WHY? RIGHTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN! DUH! Unalienable rights were given by God, human and civil rights were given by the govt. [govt is working on taking human and civil rights away...i.e. speech and guns]. But, as long as rights are intact, they have been given prior to going to court. So yes DOROTHY, the robed PERSON WILL DENY THEM TO WHOMEVER COMES INTO THE COURT ASKING TO BE GIVEN RIGHTS. THE COURT CANNOT GIVE THEM NOR CAN THE COURT TAKE THEM AWAY. THUS, MY TEACHING ON LAW, TO WHICH YOU COMMENTED. How about thinking deeper?

    But, there's a lot of the People, on this forum who are U.S. CITIZENS. As a teacher, the audience has to be gaged. What I posted was appropriate to the audience whether they are U.S. CITIZENS or not. Why?
    U.S. Citizens only have rights the government has given them, and those rights are human and civil and they can be taken away by the government, because the govt. gave them and the govt takes them daily in court, because U.S. CITIZENS don't know how to use, what has been given them.
    Unalienable rights of men, women and children can only be waived by men, women and children. However, the rights that U.S. CITIZENS have, by the bill of rights also belong to men, women and children. Why? because all rights belong to men, women and children. The Bill of rights did not give men, women and children unalienable rights, you are correct. WHOOPEE!
    But, what does your comment have to do with my teaching? So, your point is moot for the teaching of law, I presented!
    I'll tell you what does concern me though, is your desire to correct or add to a teaching that needed nothing corrected or added to it. The point, that all, even U.S. CITIZENS can stand on their rights and win, was the only principle I was conveying.
    Your comment, complicated, a simple solution which everyone on this forum could have made use of, without your complication.
    This is the same issues that happens in court, keeping it simple, is so difficult, that most people lose.
    The issues are simple, but people want to complicate them, because they do not fully comprehend how to present themselves and how to keep the issue very simple. This issue, I presented was very simple for anyone in court to make use of and win against the black robed goons.
    Your comment was basically contextually correct, but was it a necessary reply to teach others how to make use of their rights, whether those rights are unalienable, human or civil? NO! Your comment and Iconoclast's did nothing but complicate a very easy lesson and that complication was unnecessary.
    Suggestion don't do that in court or you will lose!
    You attempted to make a distinction between unalienable and human or civil. No distinction was necessary, so your point is moot!
    So, everyone who reads this:
    Iconoclast was right about the goons in black robe, if he would have read my comments, he would have found no need to post.
    Joseph A. is right, only if I had attempted by my comment to separate rights, benefits, privileges into separate and distinct groupings. Which I didn't, because I was presenting, ONE principal about rights which everyone on this forum right now can make use of: RIGHTS SUSPEND EVERYTHING, IF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THEM AND YOU COMPREHEND THEM.
    Both comments by Iconoclast and Joseph A are without merit and moot. I do however appreciate their comments, as it allows me another opportunity to teach what not to do in courts.

    1. ps. LAW REQUIRES THINKING AND THINKING ABOUT THE LAW, REQUIRES TAKING SIMPLE PRINCIPLES AND DIGESTING THEM, SO YOU CAN FULLY COMPREHEND THEM AND USE THEM. RIGHTS are very simple principles when you fully comprehend them and they are a powerhouse to stop the goons at every level. It is a fact, without rights, you are done. Another fact use your rights or lose them.
      DUE PROCESS is a right and is absolutely beautiful to use and see it work in action. And no judge gets to decide what due process is, you do, because you are the law!

    2. An iconoclast about the black robed people, the PERSONS on the Supreme Court, the District Courts, the Circuit Courts, The STATE OF STATE COURTS do they wear black robes? Do they make opinions everyday that affect the lives of PERSONS everywhere? Yes they absolutely do and those SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, knock down legislative acts all the times.

      So if the Supreme Court black robed opinions are knocking down legislative acts, are those black robed opinions law or not? Is the Supreme Court not given power by the Constitution and The Constitution as the 3rd branch of government with equal power to the other 2 branches. Don't those judges by their opinion make law? You bet you backside they make law and you bet your backside it is their right by the Constitutions. She the issue is you don't fully comprehend law and opinions made by the 3rd branch of government.

      You probably also do not comprehend the differences between superior and inferior courts or article 3 or article 1 or UNITED STATES TAX COURT, which is not a court of the United States. If you did comprehend court structure, you would most definitely not posted the opinions of the black robed, do not matter. I would challenge you to ask, any PERSON who paid a $300. traffic fine, if the judges opinion mattered. I can assure you what that PERSON would reply. You opinion about the black robed is null and void as a fact in law. I would not advise you taking that opinion to court and facing a black robed PERSON with it. Now, this is a teacher who is presenting you facts!

      So my comment above about teaching the law, still stands and what is your point again?

    3. Ps. Iconoclast let me given you the definition of Common Law: court rulings! Oh, I don't mean what we have today, which is a commercial, civil thing, which is judge made law. I am talking about the true American Jurisprudence, which we had before the Judiciary Act of 1789. Common Law is not made by Congressional Acts and then signed by the president and then ruled by the federal courts.
      Common Law is the rulings in Court of the People. It is law made by the People for the People.
      Today we do not have Common Law courts, so we do not have true court made law. What we have today is civil law by civil judges. But, I can most definitely assure you those civil law judges, are making law everyday in black robes and by their opinions. Its called Administrative Law and they use it everyday a court is opened anywhere in this country.
      Learn something about law and court structure, because you comment was without knowledge and could confuse others trying to learn truth, from a teacher who knows the subject she is teaching.

  6. Nice job of trying to sidestep the only issue I raised,opinions. You seem to think the opinions of state actors have more weight than the opinions of others. You lost all credibility with me, as a teacher, by embracing the premise that people can make law. You grant authority that is not yours to grant and become an accomplice to their sins. Ye worship, ye know not what

    1. iconoclast, that's an assumption you are making as you obviously don't know how to read!

    2. Also you do not see the big picture of what I am conveying. Sorry you can't comprehend. That's your problem and not mine! Your opinion however, has no merit about my teaching. It's about your comprehension level.

    3. Actually, when you are talking about law it's not worship its WORD-SHIP. We are talking about admiralty law or don't you know the difference. Worship is what men, women and children do to the Lord God Almighty. WORD-SHIP is what is done in law! Stop trying to seize my words and mis-construct them, into your own unknowledgeable opinion. I know the difference between construction and misconstruction, so you can't ensnare me, in your deception.

    4. also from my original post, i quote; "I can tell you with all assuredness, those 3 facts:in law will kill 'OPINIONS', before a nickel you drop could hit the floor.
      Since you cannot comprehend on your own, what I conveyed, 'FACTS IN:LAW.....OVERRIDE A-L-L O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S!
      OK! DID....YOU...GET...IT...THAT...TIME?

    5. PS. And just maybe you should go back to my first comment about the law and read the first paragraph and try to read it for comprehension this time! HELLO?

