"As a lawyer I think it is a disaster area and as a Christian believer and teacher I think it is a disaster area," said Ovey, who also worked as a parliamentary draftsman in the 1980s. "There has got be a better way to do it." The proposal is expected to defend what it has outlined as "British values," such as democracy, tolerance and the rule of law, and crack down against views that go against those values.

Ovey warned, however, that unless clarified, the measures could very easily be used to target preachers and the curriculum of colleges such as his. There have been a number of recent cases where Christian preachers have been arrested after people complained their message was homophobic or condemnatory.

Ovey added that it could also lead to the government establishing a link between the Church's teachings against abortion and violent anti-abortion groups. "That is essentially a government saying trust us with your civil liberties. I would say, frankly, human experience tells us the last thing you ever want to do is trust a government with your civil liberties," he said.

The whole Jade Helm drill is unconstitutional on its face… it violates Posse Comitatus and a whole bunch of other regulations that govern our Constitution… I am, as an American, personally insulted.

The American people are nowhere near moving to revolutionary status. We’re not on the verge of a civil war, although this could provoke a move to this direction and could actually cause a civil war… what they’re planning to do to us. This is totally a provocative move on the part of the Obama administration… misusing our military in violation of the law. I believe Obama is trying to force a confrontation so that he has a pretext to declare martial law.

"If you trust only men you have lost," he told the young people in a long, rambling talk about war, trust and politics after putting aside his prepared address. "It makes me think of… people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit a distrust, doesn't it?" he said to applause.

He also criticized those who invest in weapons industries, saying "duplicity is the currency of today… they say one thing and do another."

“I look at the markets as being unstable, which means some days they go up a lot and some days they go down rapidly, but they don’t advance very far when you look at real growth,” Paul said on CNBC’s ‘Futures Now’ on Thursday. “The [Federal Reserve] won’t allow this market to drop. This is why I’ve always leaned toward the assumption that the Fed is never going to raise interest rates deliberately. I think the market will raise interest rates.”

On Wednesday, the Fed released a statement that indicated it would not raise interest rates at this time, leading stocks to surge on Thursday. The Nasdaq topped its intraday high from March 2000, while the S&P 500 closed less than 1 percent off its all-time high. Paul blamed the Chairman of the Federal Reserve for causing economic instability, noting that their every word can be interpreted by the market actors in radical and unexpected ways, leading to “havoc.” Market-determined interest rates, he suggested, would lead to more stability and better results for the economy.

One of the things that Paul is adamant will happen is that the stock market will crash, bringing the entire US ‒ and possibly world ‒ economy with it. “It could be tomorrow, it could be a month, it could be a couple years because it all depends on a psychological acceptance of the system,” he said. “I don’t think there’s any way to know what the time is but, you know, after 35 years of a gigantic bull market in bonds, believe me, they cannot reverse history. You cannot print money forever and deceive the markets forever."

The Israeli prime minister used this as an opportunity to lobby against the nuclear deal that Mr Obama is seeking to negotiate with Tehran. Then there is also the moribund peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Earlier this month, President Obama gave a revealing interview to Israel's Channel 2 television station.

It was an opportunity to speak directly to the Israeli public; to try to convince them of his fundamental support for the Jewish state. But he injected a warning note too. He argued that if the current "status-quo" between Israel and the Palestinians were not resolved, then demographics and the frustration of the Palestinians would force Israel into a choice "about the nature of the Israeli state and its character". There was a risk, he said, of Israel losing its "essential values".

And he went further, warning that there could be more immediate diplomatic consequences too. If there were no progress towards peace, Mr Obama said, there would be an impact upon "how we approach defending Israel on the international stage round the Palestinian issue".

Given the history of Iran funding global terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and many more over the years, world leaders are left wondering just what is going through President Obama’s mind when it comes to pushing this deal. Iran has been vocal about their opposition to the existence of Israel (one of the strongest and most reliable allies to the US). Any deal with Iran that allows it to have nuclear capabilities is tantamount to putting a gun in the hands of a killer. You just know it will be used.

There is an Indian Christian religious leader, Dr Kilari Anand Paul – the President of the Global Peace Initiative, who is asking foes to join hands in support of Israel and against Iran. K A Paul was called “the most popular evangelical minister” by The New Republic Magazine, after he counseled Liberia’s Dictator Charles Taylor into stepping down, and convinced Haitian Rebel Leader Guy Philippe to lay down his arms. He has gathered a coalition of world leaders and religious figures in an effort to stop the United States from signing a nuclear deal with Iran.

While the clock is ticking for an agreement to be finalized between the United States and Iran, Dr Paul, along with religious leaders representing Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and others, as well as leaders from Sudan and the Arab led Gulf Cooperation Council have come together to stop a nuclear deal with Iran. Remarkably, Paul is billing this quest as a drive to save Israel and the Middle East, and he seemingly has support.

It is time to call things by their correct name. A nuclear war in the Middle East is no longer inconceivable. This is the case, moreover, even if Israel were somehow to remain the only nuclear weapons state in the chaotic region. How is this possible? Significantly, a bellum atomicum could arrive in Israel not only as a “bolt from the blue” enemy nuclear missile attack, but also as a result, intended or unwitting, of escalation.

If, for example, certain Arab/Islamic states were to begin hostilities with conventional attacks upon Israel, Jerusalem could decide to respond, sooner or later, with thoughtfully calculated and correspondingly graduated nuclear reprisals. Alternatively, if these enemy states were to commence conflict by launching large-scale conventional attacks upon Israel, Jerusalem’s conventional reprisals could then be met, sometime in the not-too-distant future, with certain enemy nuclear counter-strikes.

If it hadn’t been for Israel’s earlier preemptive operations against both Iraq and Syria (Operations Opera and Orchard, respectively), the Middle East could already have been rife with Arab/Islamist nuclear forces. Looking back upon these uniquely focused expressions of national self-defense, Israel had effectively ensured that such assorted terror groups as Islamic State, al-Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah are not presently nuclear. The still generally unrecognized benefits of these extraordinary operations have impacted not only Israel, but also the United States and its allies, all now fighting jihadists in a rapidly disintegrating region.

The regional future, however, is apt to be less secure. For one thing, with a prospectively nuclear Iran, the derivative risks of nuclear terrorism could become intolerable. Some of these newer risks might not stay contained to the Middle East. In some form or other, they could carry over to the scarcely protected American or European homelands.

(Although what if all the roofs generated solar power?) And there's a lot to be said for the benefits of living in the country.

But Per Square Mile's density statistics are thought-provoking. Density is more sustainable than sprawl, and while it might be hard to convince every person on Earth to move to Texas, we could all afford to live a little closer together. (Though we don't have to live like New Yorkers.)”

The company who has provided its services for athletes, artists and fashion people has recently admitted to providing services for both Republican and Democrat candidates. Ceo and founder Adam Swart was emailed a few questions about his services by activist Ian Cioffi. The company owner was asked if his system is proven to work in US politics?

Swart claimed, he has done work for “dozens of candidates in the US primarily but not exclusively Republican. Mostly they are candidates who suffer from lack of enthusiasm/turnout at rallies and in need of a ‘game change’. The candidates have been primarily congressional/senate candidates. We’ve only worked with one presidential candidate thus far.” So what other benefits could a company of this magnitude offer?

Adam went on to express that they could even go miles further with their expertise and can give a sense of legitimacy for the candidate.

The Rev Melvin Tinker, a parish priest in the Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu’s diocese, said a senior cleric who is due to bless the city’s annual Pride parade at the Minster on Saturday should be “ashamed of himself”.

The Rev Canon Michael Smith, the Canon Pastor of York Minister, said he hoped launching the parade would help people “discover God’s love” and said it was vital that the church was “welcoming and affirming”. But speaking on the radio station Minster FM, Rev Tinker said this amounted to endorsing “immoral action”. He added: “Would he say serial adulterers should be welcome in the church? Should he say that people who are engaged in paedophilia should be involved in the church?"

When the presenter pointed out that homosexuality is legal, he replied: “At one time of course homosexual genital activity was illegal. I don’t think legality in the eyes of the law is anything to do with this. What we are talking about is whether certain actions are right or wrong in God’s eyes, as he has revealed it in scripture, and also according to natural law as well.”

The photo is indeed iconic. And not just in the shallow celeb meaning of that word. It’s iconic in the traditional sense, too, in that it’s being venerated as an actual icon, a devotional image of an apparently holy human. It’s an image we’re all expected to bow down to, whose essential truth we must imbibe; an image you question or ridicule at your peril, with those who refuse to genuflect before it facing excommunication from polite society. Yesterday’s Jennermania confirms how weirdly authoritarian, even idolatrous, trans politics has become.

There is a palpable religiosity to the wild hailing of Bruce/Caitlyn as a modern-day saint, a Virgin Mary with testicles. Within four hours, more than a million people were following Bruce/Caitlyn’s new Twitter account, hanging on her words like the expectant horde waiting for Moses at the foot of Mount Sinai. Her every utterance, all banal celeb-speak, was retweeted tens of thousands of times. Celebs and commentators greeted her as a kind of messiah. ‘We’ve been waiting for you with open arms’, said an overexcited editor at Buzzfeed. Across the Twittersphere Caitlyn was worshipped as a ‘goddess’, a ‘goddess in human form’, a ‘goddess made manifest on Earth’.

The American gay-rights group GLAAD is scouring the mainstream media for any use of the word ‘he’ in relation to Caitlyn, like a modern incarnation of the Vatican’s Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which monitored the public sphere for any less-than-gushing commentary on God. It has issued speech-policing guidelines for the media. ‘DON’T refer to her by her former name… DO avoid using male pronouns and Caitlyn’s prior name, even when referring to events in her past.’

With its millions of agog followers, its worship of an iconic image, its insistence we all ‘bow down’, the Cult of Caitlyn gives Catholic mariolatry a run for its money in the blind-devotion stakes. And of course, as with all venerated icons, anyone who refuses to recognise the truth of Caitlyn’s Vanity Fair cover has faced mob punishment or finger-wagging corrections of their goddess-defying blasphemy.

Moments ago, this committee released its preliminary findings, and here is the conclusion from the full report presented below:

“All the evidence we present in this report shows that Greece not only does not have the ability to pay this debt, but also should not pay this debt first and foremost because the debt emerging from the Troika’s arrangements is a direct infringement on the fundamental human rights of the residents of Greece. Hence, we came to the conclusion that Greece should not pay this debt because it is illegal, illegitimate, and odious.”

As we predicted over four years ago, Greece has effectively just declared that it will no longer have to default on its IMF (or any other debt - note that the dreaded "Troika" word finally makes an appearance after it was officially banned) simply because that debt was not legal to begin with, ie it was "odious."

If so, this has just thrown a very unique wrench in the spokes of not only the Greek debt negotiations, but all other peripheral European nations' negotiations, who will promptly demand that their debt be, likewise, declared odious, and made null and void, thus washing their hands of servicing it again.

Opposition parties have criticised the move saying it was a political tactic by the cash strapped government. However the evidence marshalled by the debt truth committee could be used in a potential court case by the Greek government, should it seek a legal route out of its massive debts.

The concept of odious debt is established in international law where dictatorships or illegitimate governments have borrowed money and later been succeeded by democratic regimes.