US Secretary of State John Kerry expressed a "cautious measure of optimism" after a four-hour meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Berlin on Thursday about proposals that could help defuse the deadly wave of recent violence in Israel. Kerry, his voice hoarse after an overnight flight and the lengthy talks, told reporters that he planned to raise the proposals with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan's King Abdullah in a meeting Saturday in Jordan's capital, Amman.

"I come directly from several hours of conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu and I would characterize that conversation as one that gave me a cautious measure of optimism that there may be some things that maybe in the next couple of days put on the table which would have an impact - I hope," Kerry said. "I don't want to be excessive in stating that, but I am cautiously encouraged."

"I think it’s time for the international community to say clearly to President Abbas: 'Stop spreading lies about Israel'," Netanyahu told Kerry at the beginning of the meeting. "Lies that Israel wants to change the status quo on the Temple Mount, lies that Israel wants to tear down the al-Aqsa Mosque and lies that Israel is executing Palestinians. I think it’s time that the international community told President Abbas to stop the incitement and hold him accountable for his words and his deeds," Netanyahu added.

After being hit with criticism from all directions, the prime minister went back on his comments and clarified, saying on Wednesday, "I had absolutely no intention of absolving Hitler of his diabolical responsibility for the extermination of Europe's Jews. Hitler was responsible for the Final Solution to murder six million, it was his decision. At the same time it is absurd to ignore the role played by the Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, a war criminal, in encouraging and goading Hitler, Ribbentrop, Himmler and others to exterminate European Jewry."

During a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, the prime minister directed the blame to Abbas, saying, "I think the real question should be directed not at me, but at President Abbas. Why do he, and the Palestinian Authority, glorify, officially, the mufti of Jerusalem as a Palestinian icon? They call him the father of the Palestinian nation. This is a war criminal who was sought for war crimes in Nuremberg. This is a man who collaborated with the Nazis. And yet he is glorified in school books, in texts, as the father of the nation and a figure of emulation."

The three-week gathering, known as a synod, has erupted into a theological slugfest over Pope Francis’s vision of a more-inclusive church, and it has displayed the most bitter and public infighting since the heady days of Catholic reform in the 1960s. Archbishop Tomash Peta of Kazakhstan captured the magnitude of the divide, raising eyebrows — and a few incredulous laughs — as he decried some of the policy changes floated at the meeting as having the scent of “infernal smoke.”

It was just another day at a gathering that, more than any event since Francis began his papacy in 2013, has highlighted how the pontiff’s outreach to once-scorned Catholics has triggered a tug of war for the soul of the Catholic Church. More important, it underscored just how hard it may be for the pope to recast the church in his image. The pushback by traditionalists has been so strong that the chances of fast changes on contentious family issues — whether to offer Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics or to craft more-welcoming language for gays and lesbians — have substantially dimmed, if not died.

As the synod’s end nears, there has been a last-ditch push to find common ground that could at least open the door to policy alterations. But some observers already are comparing Francis to President Obama — a man whose reformist agenda was bogged down by a conservative Congress. “Francis has the same problem that Obama had,” said the Rev Thomas J Reese, a senior analyst for the National Catholic Reporter. “He promised the world, but Congress wouldn’t let him deliver. If nothing much comes of this synod, I think people will give the pope a pass and blame the bishops for stopping change.”

John Schindler, a security expert and whistleblower who now writes for The Daily Beast, has claimed that a senior EU official from an undisclosed country also inquired about impeachment proceedings, saying that the nation believes Obama is not fit for office.

The wording indicates that the opinion is not that of a single person, but rather the whole government of whichever European country the diplomat is from. According to Schindler’s source, one of the governments of those nations considers Obama to be mentally unstable. Schindler is a former US Naval War College lecturer and is known to have many high level military and government contacts.

In two separate Icelandic Supreme Court and Reykjavik District Court rulings, five top bankers from Landsbankinn and Kaupping — the two largest banks in the country — were found guilty of market manipulation, embezzlement, and breach of fiduciary duties. Most of those convicted have been sentenced to prison for two to five years. The maximum penalty for financial crimes in Iceland is six years, although their Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments to consider expanding sentences beyond the six year maximum.

After the crash in 2008, while congress was giving American banks a $700 billion TARP bailout courtesy of taxpayers, Iceland decided to go in a different direction and enabled their government with financial supervisory authority to take control of the banks as the chaos resulting from the crash unraveled.

When Iceland’s President, Olafur Ragnar Grimmson was asked how the country managed to recover from the global financial disaster, he famously replied, “We were wise enough not to follow the traditional prevailing orthodoxies of the Western financial world in the last 30 years. We introduced currency controls, we let the banks fail, we provided support for the poor, and we didn’t introduce austerity measures like you’re seeing in Europe.”

Meanwhile, in America, not one single banking executive has been charged with a crime related to the 2008 crash and US banks are raking in more than $160 billion in annual profits with little to no regulation in place to avoid another financial catastrophe.

The surprise proposal by Beijing's central bank governor reflects unease about its vast holdings of US government bonds and adds to Chinese pressure to overhaul a global financial system dominated by the dollar and Western governments. Both the United States and the European Union brushed off the idea.

The world economic crisis shows the "inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system," Governor Zhou Xiaochuan said in an essay released Monday by the bank. He recommended creating a currency made up of a basket of global currencies and controlled by the International Monetary Fund and said it would help "to achieve the objective of safeguarding global economic and financial stability."

Zhou did not mention the dollar by name. But in an unusual step, the essay was published in both Chinese and English, making clear it was meant for a foreign audience. China has long been uneasy about relying on the dollar for the bulk of its trade and to store foreign reserves. Premier Wen Jiabao publicly appealed to Washington this month to avoid any response to the crisis that might weaken the dollar and the value of Beijing's estimated $1 trillion in Treasuries and other US government debt.

It’s not just efforts to improve our quality of life at home that will suffer. Billions less will be available for international efforts to combat disease, fight hunger, support economic development or help poor countries deal with climate change.

It’s this reality of America’s tough budgetary outlook that leads me to insist that our wealthy Asian and European allies stop essentially free-riding on American taxpayers — and to argue that my fellow liberals should strongly support (but probably won’t) an increased military role for both Japan and Germany.

The British soldier and diplomat, Hastings Lionel Ismay, once remarked (whilst he was Secretary General of NATO) on the purpose of NATO that it was “to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.” Such a mentality may have been justifiable in the past but now, it merely serves to hinder NATO and the fight for freedom for which Germany can potentially be an invaluable and more active ally.

Modern Germans are no more culpable for atrocities committed by the Nazis than modern Britons are for any suffering caused by colonialism, than modern Americans are for slavery, than Russians are for Stalin’s genocide(s), than Chinese are for the catastrophic failings of Mao’s Great Leap Forward or the horror of Tiannanmen Square or Indians are for the acts of Tipu Sultan.

It would also be ideal for the people of Germany to realise that they have nothing to blame themselves for and, though the lessons of history should be remembered, it does not mean that history is doomed to repeat itself; the people of Germany can fight for and defend that which they believe in and love just as we can, if only they choose to.

The Bundeswehr’s duty is to defend the rights and freedom of the German people; who are we and, in fact, who is anyone to stop it? It is time we place genuine trust in the people of Germany. The way in which freedom resonates with humanity is universal and it transcends simple things such as nationality, culture, history and so on; to limit that same impulse by showing a lack of trust in Germany through outdated treaties is a disgrace to those who served “for peace and freedom” (those whom we most publicly honour on Remembrance Day). For the humanitarian vision of the European Union as an institution of peace to succeed (for all its socioeconomic and legal shortcomings), the peoples of Europe need to restore their faith in Germany.

Abbott’s letter references the battle between Texas landowners and the BLM first reported nationally by Breitbart Texas in April, 2014. At that time, then Texas Attorney General Abbott told Breitbart Texas in an exclusive interview, “I am about ready to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.” Abbott sent a letter to Kornz on April 22 detailing the concerns over actions taken by the BLM to “swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations.”

The governor reminded Kornz of his previous letters on this issue. “My fellow Texans and I are still waiting for an answer,” Abbott wrote. “The BLM has yet to identify what land the federal government newly claims as its own. The BLM has yet to identify the legal basis for that claim. And the BLM has yet to identify the process by which Texans can protect their land and private property rights.”

While there is most certainly a real thing known as a threat from Islamic terrorism, there is also such a thing as overreaction. What started as the British government’s attempt to ban extremist thought from social media and television (under the notion that some thoughts are too dangerous to enjoy the freedom that other thoughts deserve) then devolved into the conscripting of teachers that were to be on the lookout for children that might become radicalized.

To assist them with this, the government helpfully provided spy-software to use against students. Spy-software which itself was found to be exploitable in the most laughably easy of ways. This employed two of the most horrifying aspects of Orwell’s Oceania: the concept of thought-crime and the employ of citizens to fearfully surveil one another.

And now it seems the UK is going even further, adopting Oceania’s reputation for the swallowing up of citizens should they be found suspect of thought-crime by those watchful citizens. Specifically, the Family Division of the Judiciary has put out a memo declaring exactly how it will remove children from the homes of anyone it suspects might radicalize those children.

In other words, the High Court Judges within the Family Division are now tasked with determining whether children will be made wards of the state based solely on suspicions of possible radicalization. Nobody means to suggest that there is no threat that the UK might face from Islamic terrorists and/or extremists. But you simply don’t adopt the tactics of Orwell to combat that threat. Not if you want to claim your own people remain free, that is.

Whether it be vegan, low carb, paleo, or any other diet, the quest for the healthiest method of eating shows no sign of abating, yet all have considerable controversy. We know more than ever about what food does to the body and the importance of antioxidants, healthy fats and a low glycaemic index.

Things have changed so much since the wisdom of our ancestors was lost or ignored. Wild dandelions, once a springtime treat for Native Americans, have seven times more phytonutrients than spinach, which we consider a “superfood.” A purple potato native to Peru has 28 times more cancer-fighting anthocyanins than common russet potatoes. One species of apple has a staggering 100 times more phytonutrients than the Golden Delicious displayed in our supermarkets.

The bottom line is that although aspects of today’s food production, processing and storage might make what we eat a bit less nutritious, they are also making foods more available — and this is far more important. The majority of us consume far less fruit and vegetables than we ought to. We eat too much fat, sugar and salt and not enough oily fish.

“The most important thing you can do is eat more fruits, vegetables and wholegrains, and cut down on highly refined, human-made foods, vegetable oils and added sugars,” says Davis. “If you’re worrying about nutrient losses from cooking or whether your food is straight from the farm — those differences are minor compared to the differences you’d get from eating unprocessed foods.”

There is little doubt what most people in the UK would like to have as our relationship with the other EU member states. They would like to have free trade and to co-operate with everyone on the continent in all the ways which obviously make sense - on crime and terrorism; on global warming, and on all the other issues where we have common interests - but on an inter-governmental basis rather than as part of a steadily evolving political union.

It is equally clear that the vast majority of UK voters do not like paying nearly £300 million a week to the EU, net of any money coming back; they don’t like decisions on social and employment legislation being taken in Brussels rather than in Westminster; they would like us to have more control over our borders; they don’t support either the Common Agricultural or the Common Fishery Policies - and they want to make sure that, if we are the only major country in the EU but not in the euro, that we are safeguarded against being out-voted every time their interests diverge from ours.

The problem is that the scenario which almost everyone would really like to see is not going to be on offer to us.

Mark Carney said membership of the European Union had helped to lift UK growth and living standards, while enhancing Britain's flexible jobs market and "dynamism". Mr Carney said the UK had been the "leading beneficiary" in many ways of the "Four Freedoms" of the movement of goods, services, people and capital across borders, first set out in the Treaty of Rome.

But while his remarks signalled the backing of Britain's EU membership, Mr Carney said in a speech on Wednesday at Oxford University that it was "essential" that steps towards closer eurozone integration did not ride roughshod over UK policymakers' ability to preserve financial stability. Mr Carney steered clear of making an explicit statement on whether the country should remain inside the 28-nation bloc.

However, the Governor said it was vital that the EU had a "robust regulatory framework" that continued to "work for all [its] members". He said Britain should seek a "principled" and "upfront" guarantee from the eurozone that the EU is a multi-currency zone.

We came across a Washington Post article written in 1999 entitled, “When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing”, all about psychological operations, or psyops. When they started talking about projecting holograms of Allah over Iraq, they weren’t joking around. What if the US projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force officer asked in 1990?

According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air. They came to the conclusion it would require too much hardware (a one-mile square mirror in space, for one) and too much power to be feasible during Operation Desert Storm. (Also, it’s diabolical and evil.)

So, case closed? Nope. The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The “Holographic Projector” is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to “project information power from space … for special operations deception missions.” Who was it that said Project Blue Beam is just a “conspiracy theory” again?

The corrupt, criminal regime currently occupying Washington DC is losing its grip over America. The wild popularity of Donald Trump reflects America's loss of false faith in the institutions of government and mainstream media. The American people are tired of being lied to and are waking up to the reality of how they have been propagandized, controlled and imprisoned by a totalitarian regime that respects no law or individual liberty.

…all websites that contradict the criminal government's official narrative will be censored, disrupted or confiscated by the government. Just like in China today, American journalists who conduct actual investigations and post truthful reporting may be arrested and thrown in jail.

Why will this happen? Because the new media is rising rapidly, taking viewers, listeners and readership away from the corrupt controllers. Belief in the mainstream media is plummeting, and no one trusts official government narratives anymore.

The strategy for the criminal regime in Washington DC is to take the indy media offline, but they can't carry it out without an outpouring of public support for crushing the First Amendment. This can only be accomplished by staging a huge false flag attack (with massive casualties above 10,000) and blaming it on "domestic extremists" who have ties to independent media journalism websites.

In the aftermath of this massive false flag, bloggers and journalists who disagree with the official government narrative will be labeled "anti-government extremists" and blamed for the staged attack.