Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Author Archive

Stupid as Stupid Does – Kerry: Air conditioners as big a threat as the Islamic State

Stop laughing. Kerry is right. Watch for the next mass shooting by your air conditioner. Remember all those manifestos your air conditioner issued, vowing the imminent destruction of the U.S.

JOHN-KERRY-STATE-DEPARTMENT-AP-JOHN-DHARAPAK_0
Kerry: Air conditioners as big a threat as the Islamic State
JULY 22, 2016 4:30 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER 145 COMMENTS

Stop laughing. Kerry is right. Watch for the next mass shooting by your air conditioner. Remember all those manifestos your air conditioner issued, vowing the imminent destruction of the U.S.

JOHN KERRY-STATE DEPARTMENT-AP-JOHN DHARAPAK_0

“Kerry: Air Conditioners as Big a Threat as ISIS,” by Alyssa Canobbio, Washington Free Beacon, July 22, 2016:

Secretary of State John Kerry said in Vienna on Friday that air conditioners and refrigerators are as big of a threat to life as the threat of terrorism posed by groups like the Islamic State.

The Washington Examiner reported that Kerry was in Vienna to amend the 1987 Montreal Protocol that would phase out hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, from basic household and commercial appliances like air conditioners, refrigerators, and inhalers.

“As we were working together on the challenge of [ISIS] and terrorism,” Kerry said. “It’s hard for some people to grasp it, but what we–you–are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself.”

Kerry said that most of the substances banned in the Montreal Protocol have increased the use of HFCs and claimed that the coolant was thousands of times more potent than CO2. He added that the increase of HFCs has lead to the trend of global climate change.

“The use of hydrofluorocarbons is unfortunately growing,” Kerry said. “Already, the HFCs use in refrigerators, air conditioners, and other items are emitting an entire gigaton of carbon dioxide-equivalent pollution into the atmosphere annually. Now, if that sounds like a lot, my friends, it’s because it is. It’s the equivalent to emissions from nearly 300 coal-fired power plants every single year.”…

Rush Limbaugh INFURIATES Protesters After Coming Up With New Meaning For “BLM”

The Black Lives Matter group has been criticized for promoting violence against police officers, and many have held them responsible for the shooting deaths of eight cops in Dallas and Baton Rouge.

In the wake of those tragedies, Rush Limbaugh renamed the racially-motivated group, saying that “BLM” now stands for “Black Lives Murder” because their anti-police and anti-authority rhetoric encouraged the slaying of cops.

On the Monday edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, the fiery conservative discussed how the recent acquittal of another Baltimore police officer involved in the Freddie Gray case could lead to “problems” in the already divided city.
“This is the kind of thing that’s happening now that causes Black Lives Murder,” Limbaugh explained. “You know, that’s what it’s becoming out there.”

The radio host said that the lies perpetuated by Black Lives Matter and even President Barack Obama has contributed to a nationwide culture of violence and hatred towards all police officers, regardless of their involvement in scuffles with the black community.

The “hands up, don’t shoot” lie, Limbaugh pointed out, was intentionally spread by liberals who insisted on fanning the flames of racial division in the United States.

“The story coming out of Ferguson, Missouri, ‘hands up, don’t shoot,’ that the Gentle Giant was walking innocently down the street on an idyllic Saturday afternoon in August thinking passionately about his first year away at college. All of a sudden was gunned down by a racist white cop who went hunting for a young black male. And what was this man’s grievance? What was his alleged crime? He was walking in the street, not the sidewalk. And he put his hands up, he said, ‘Don’t shoot, don’t shoot.’ And the cop fired, and the Gentle Giant was dead.”

That’s the narrative — the lie — spread by liberals and adopted by the Black Lives Matter organization to justify violence against cops across the country, and they have refused to listen to anyone who tries to tell them that the entire premise of their organization is based on a whopping falsity.

“Imagine if the president of the United States had done a national address and knocked down every falsehood of that, instead of giving it life,” Limbaugh said. “Instead of sending Eric Holder out there to make it look like they didn’t trust the local grand jury and their results, what if the president had simply said, ‘Folks, you’re believing stuff that didn’t happen.’”

“People believe the president for whatever reason, no matter who he happens to be, and he didn’t say that,” Limbaugh concluded.No, he certainly did not say that. He has undermined our community heroes time and time again, and only now, after several of them have been murdered, does the president want to “condemn” violence and hateful rhetoric towards cops.

Too little too late, Mr. President. The monster you encouraged and helped create has spiraled out of even your control. And, unfortunately, their mission has become less about black lives mattering and more about black lives murdering innocent police officers.

Obama Celebrates MUSLIM Holiday For 1st Time At The WH – Does This OFFEND You?

President Obama continues to show America exactly where his priorities are. Even after the countless terror attacks at the hands of his ‘religion of peace,’ he still decided to celebrate this Muslim holiday for the first time in the White House. Does this offend you?

President Obama spoke in strong support of Muslim Americans, who he said ‘enrich our lives every single day’, during the first ever Eid celebration at the White House on Thursday.
Obama broke from the tradition of hosting the annual Iftar dinner, an evening meal during Ramadan where Muslims break their daily fast, to celebrate the conclusion of the Islamic holy month instead.
More than 100 Muslim Americans attended the event celebrating the holiday, including Muhammad Ali’s wife Lonnie and six of their children.
Obama began his remarks by paying tribute to the Greatest, who passed during Ramadan.
‘As proud of his blackness as he was of his faith, the Champ taught us that the most important thing in life is to be ourselves,’ the president told the crowd.
And, Obama said, he wanted the day to be a reminder that Muslims ‘have always been a part of America’.
‘For more than two centuries, Muslim Americans of all backgrounds – Arab and Asian, African and Latino, black and white – have helped build America,’ he said.
‘As farmers and merchants, factory workers, architects, teachers and community leaders. Muslim Americans have enriched our lives every single days.’

Mex President threatens: If Trump wins we will call back our citizens

MTMzMTE4ODA5NjE0NTkyNjQz

The President of Mexico threatened at the world economic summit grave consequences if Trump gets the Presidential seat: all the Mexicans in the USA will be going back home to Mexico.

The Mexican government announced they will close their borders to Americans in the event that Donald Trump is elected President of the United States. President Enrique Peña Nieto announced the country fears Americans will flood their country and bring violence and chaos to their streets. “Many Americans have expressed a desire to relocate to our country in the event that Donald Trump becomes President. We cannot have Mexico flooded with criminals and rapists,” he said.

In an interview with Telemundo, Nieto also announced that “further action will be taken by the Mexican government to ensure every single citizen of Mexico currently residing in the United States is brought home safely.” “We will not play around with something as important as the lives of our people. In our eyes and the eyes of every Mexican in the world, Donald Trump is a xenophobic, bigoted terrorist and imperialist who will ruin a country that was once a true friend of Mexico.”

However, many Mexicans who have managed to obtain a U.S. citizenship through legal channels fear this move. Mexico is currently the 3rd largest trading partner of the United States, with $507 billion worth of goods trade in 2013 alone. “Although shutting down the influx of billions of dollars that our people send home every month could cripple our economy, I still believe this is the right thing to do in the long run,” the President argued. “We’ll bring our people home, where it is safe and welcoming. We will be able to offer them better and more civilized working conditions.”

“Besides,” Nieto opined, “If, by some miracle, President Trump somehow manages to get back American jobs from China, which I doubt he’ll succeed, they’ll be needing good workers because they won’t be having any Mexicans anymore. But what they don’t understand is the fact that, if they do get those jobs back, they are going to cost the government much more than a simple low-wage Mexican worker would. And good luck trying to maintain the number one economy in the world then.”

“Too long has the Mexican worker in America been discriminated and oppressed because of his skin color,” the President stated. “And when our people come back home, they will take our food, music, culture and all things Mexican along with them. And in case you’re reading this, Mr. Trump – yes, that does include Mexican prostitutes you’re so secretly fond of. So, you can forget about the Sunday night specials with all-you-can-undress free deals. Because, we know everything.”

“Finally, I would like to add that all of your professional athletes, actors and actresses and pretty much all celebrities can kiss the steroids and drugs goodbye. Your country is built on cocaine, heroin, crack, marijuana (which is a Spanish word, by the way) and steroids that have come to America through Mexico. Thanks to these substances, you were able to have Arnold Schwarzenegger, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, Nirvana and pretty much your entire popular culture. But, I guess you already knew that when you signed up to vote for Mr. Trump and his famous wall. Good luck with him, and good riddance,” President Nieto concluded in his interview.

Texas Makes Huge Move Against Black Lives Matter

BLK

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the Lone Star State lawmakers are cracking down after recent recent attacks carried out against police officers.

Abbott on Monday announced the Police Protection Act, which
 aims to strengthen penalties for crimes committed against police officers.

“At a time when law enforcement officers increasingly come under assault simply because of the job they hold, Texas must send a resolute message that the state will stand by the men and women who serve and protect our communities,” Abbott said in a news release, according to KTBC.
Abbott said that while Texas and the nation continued to mourn the heroes lost in Dallas, it was time for Texans to unite and say, “No more.”

“The men and women in uniform risk their lives every day to protect the public, and it is time we show them the state of Texas has their back,” Abbott said in the release.

“Texas will no longer tolerate disrespect for those who serve, and it must be made to clear to anyone targeting our law enforcement officials that their actions will be met with severe justice.”

The Police Protection Act will extend hate crime protections to law enforcement officers and increase criminal penalties crimes committed against law enforcement.

The act also aims to create a culture of respect for law enforcement that includes organizing a campaign to educate youth on the value police officers bring to their communities.

Currently, assault with bodily injury to a public servant is punishable as a Class A misdemeanor. Under Abbott’s proposal, the penalty against such an assault would increase to a 2nd degree felony.

The measure has been met with approval form several law enforcement organizations. Ray Hunt, President of the Houston Police Officers Association, said he was encouraged by the legislation. Ron Pinkston, President, Dallas Police Association, said the Dallas Police Association applauded the governor. Grimes County Sheriff Donald Sowell, president of the Sheriff’s Association of Texas, said his organization was pleased to see the governor move to protect law enforcement officers.

OBAMA ACCUSES GOP OF FAVORING AMERICANS OVER ILLEGAL ALIENS!

a-obama-employment-1024x576

na·tiv·ism
noun \ˈnā-ti-ˌvi-zəm\
1
: a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants
2
: the revival or perpetuation of an indigenous culture especially in opposition to acculturation

Seriously Mr. Obama?

And how is this a bad thing? Remember who won big in 2014?

Oh, yes indeed, the foreigners and immigrants are far more concerned about America than Americans[sic]…Next, Obama will be accusing individuals of having more self-interest in themselves, than other people….

Does this guy actually believe, at this point, anything that comes out of his own mouth?
Next Obama will be accusing GOP members of being more concerned over their families than strangers….

In an pre-recorded interview with National Public Radio (NPR) broadcast on December 29, President Obama posed the rhetorical question: “By me having taken these [executive] actions, does that spur those voices in the Republican Party who I think genuinely believe immigration is good for our country? Does it spur them to work once again with Democrats and my administration to get a reasonable piece of legislation done?”

“Or does it simply solidify what I do think is a nativist trend in parts of the Republican Party?”

Obama was responding to a question asked by Steve Inskeep, one of the hosts of NPR’s Morning Edition program. After the president stated that he thought Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) were responding to those who looked to them “to get things done” and that “the fact that we disagree on one thing shouldn’t prohibit us from getting progress on the areas where there’s some overlap,” Inskeep asked:

Well, let me figure out if there’s overlap on immigration. In an interview in August, you described the Republican Party as being “captive to nativist elements of the party.”

What did you mean by that, and can you work with people who you think of in that way?

Obama replied, in part:

Well, on immigration, I probably can’t; Steve King [R-Iowa] and I fundamentally disagree on immigration….

I think the Republican Party contains a lot of legislators who recognize that; and we know that because those folks voted for a comprehensive bill in the Senate that in many ways was more generous than I was able to offer through executive action.

So, the question then becomes, by me having taken these actions, does that spur those voices in the Republican Party who I think genuinely believe immigration is good for our country? Does it spur them to work once again with Democrats and my administration to get a reasonable piece of legislation done?

Or does it simply solidify what I do think is a nativist trend in parts of the Republican Party? And if it’s the latter, then probably we’re not going to get much more progress done, and it’ll be a major debate in the next presidential election.

I think that if a Republican lawmaker was sitting here, he might say, “Wait a minute. I’m not captive to nativist elements. I have actual concerns, and you’re not addressing them.”

Well, the problem is what are those concerns and how is it that I’m not addressing them?… They’d have to identify for me specifically what those concerns are other than some sense that, you know, these folks just shouldn’t be here.

The original interview to which Inskeep referred was with John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of The Economist, and Edward Carr, the newspaper’s foreign editor, and was published in The Economist for August 2.

When the interviewers asked the president to expand on his criticism of the business community for believing that “the only responsibility that a corporate CEO has is to his shareholders,”(to which the interviewers countered, “Every CEO nowadays is involved in nine different social responsibility things”) Obama replied:

There’s a huge gap between the professed values and visions of corporate CEOs and how their lobbyists operate in Washington…. My challenge to them consistently is, is your lobbyist working as hard on those issues as he or she is on preserving that tax break that you’ve got? And if the answer is no, then you don’t care about it as much as you say.

Obama then shifted gears and focused his criticism away from corporate CEOs and toward Republicans:

Now, to their credit, I think on an issue like immigration reform, for example, companies did step up. And what they’re discovering is the problem is not the regulatory zealotry of the Obama administration; what they’re discovering is the dysfunction of a Republican Party that knows we need immigration reform, knows that it would actually be good for its long-term prospects, but is captive to the nativist elements in its party.

Since Obama seems to enjoy throwing the “nativist” term around when criticizing those in the Republican Party who oppose his plans for “immigration reform” (which, far from reforming our “broken” immigration system, always includes granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants), it might be worthwhile to consider the origins of the term in its historical context.

The anti-immigrant philosophy often called nativism was most visible in the United States during the 19th century, the peak years for immigration into the United States. Unlike today, almost all of the immigration during that period was legal. And since the nation was relatively underpopulated during those years in comparison to its rapid growth in territory, opposition to immigrants was motivated by factors other than economics and competition for jobs.

Nativists were active in New York as early as 1843, operating in the American Republican Party, which became the Native American Party in 1845. This party shared leadership with the more widely known Know-Nothing Party. The anti-immigrant stance of the Know-Nothings was based not on the fact that the immigrants threatened America’s economy, but because most Irish and many German immigrants were Catholic. Among the most famous activists in the Know-Nothing movement was the inventor Samuel Morse, a rabid anti-Catholic who wanted to forbid Catholics from holding public office, and worked to change immigration laws to limit immigration from Catholic countries.

As immigration patterns shifted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and more immigrants came from southern and Eastern Europe, anti-Catholicism gave way to anti-Italian, anti-Polish, and anti-Jewish sentiments. These prejudices eventually became institutionalized in immigration legislation, culminating in the Immigration Act of 1924, which limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to two percent of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890. The act effectively reduced the flow of immigrants from Italy, Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe — most of whom were Catholics, Orthodox, or Jews — to a trickle.

The reasons why the globalists are destined to lose

pla-reasons-globalists-destined-lose
Under the surface of almost every sociopolitical and economic event in the world there burns an ever-raging, but often unseen, war. This war, for now, is fought with fiction and with truth, with journalistic combat and with quiet individual deeds. It is defined by two sides which could not be more philosophically or spiritually separate.

On one side is a pervasive network of corporate moguls and elites, banking entities, international financial consortiums, think tanks and political puppets. They work tirelessly to reshape public psychology and society as a whole into something they sometimes call the “New World Order;” a completely and scientifically centralized planet in which they control every aspect of government, trade, life and even moral compass. I often refer to them simply as the “Globalists,” which is how they at times refer to themselves.

On the other side is a movement that has developed organically and instinctively, growing without direct top-down “leadership,” but still guided through example by various teachers and activists, driven by a concrete set of principles based in natural law. It is composed of the religious, the agnostic and even some atheists. It is soldiered by people of all ethnic and financial backgrounds. These groups are tied together by a singular and resounding belief in the one vital thing they can all agree upon — the inherent and inborn rights of freedom. I call them the “Liberty Movement.”

There are those who think they do not have a dog in this fight, those who ignore it and those who are completely oblivious to it. However, everyone can and will be affected by it, no exceptions. This war is for the future of the human race. Its consequences will determine if the next generation will choose the conditions of their environment and maintain the ability to reach their true potential as individuals or if every aspect of their lives will be micromanaged for them by a faceless, soulless bureaucracy that probably does not have their best interests at heart.

As you can probably tell, I am not unbiased in my examination of these two sides. While some of the more “academically minded” cynics out there do attempt to marginalize the entire conflict by accusing both sides of simply trying to impose “their ideology” on the rest of humanity, I would say that such people are generally ignorant of what is at stake.

There is in fact an elemental force behind this war. I would even call it a conflagration between good and evil. For a more in-depth analysis on the evil behind globalism, read my article “Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood.”

Some people don’t adhere to such absolutes or they think good and evil are fantasies created by religion to keep society in check. I have no intention of trying to convince them otherwise. All I can say is, I have seen and experienced these absolutes first hand and, therefore, I have no choice but to remain a believer.

I would also point out that the general experience of most men and women is that the act of organized and legitimate oppression is inherently evil and such actions in the name of satisfying delusional elitist narcissism are even more evil. While these experiences are subjective, they are also universal, regardless of the culture, place or time in history. Most of us feel the same horror and the same defiance when facing rising tyranny. We can’t necessarily explain why, but we all know.

While I am firmly on the side of liberty and am willing to fight and trade my life to stop the “New World Order” the globalists are so obsessed with, I will not turn this examination of their tactics into a blind or one sided farce. I will point out where the elites are effective just as I will point out where they are ineffective. It would do more harm than good to portray the globalists as “stupid” or bumbling in their efforts. They are not stupid. They are actually astonishingly clever and should not be underestimated.

They are indeed conniving and industrious, but they are not wise. For if they were wise, they would be able to see the ultimate futility of their goal and the world would be saved decades of tragedy and loss. Their cultism has dulled their senses to reality and they have abandoned truth in the name of control. Here are some of the primary strategies that the globalists are using to gain power and work towards total centralization and why their own mindset has doomed them to failure.

Globalism vs. “populism”

The globalists have used the method of false dichotomies for centuries to divide nations and peoples against each other in order to derive opportunity from chaos. That said, the above dichotomy is about as close to real as they have ever promoted. As I explained in my article, “Globalists Are Now Openly Demanding New World Order Centralization,” the recent passage of the Brexit referendum in the U.K. has triggered a surge of new propaganda from establishment media outlets. The thrust of this propaganda is the notion that “populists” are behind the fight against globalization and these populists are going to foster the ruin of nations and the global economy. That is to say — globalism good, populism bad.

There is a real fight between globalists and those who desire a free, decentralized and voluntary society. They have just changed some of the labels and the language. We have yet to see how effective this strategy will be for the elites, but it is very useful for them in certain respects.

The wielding of the term “populist” is about as sterilized and distant from “freedom and liberty” as you can get. It denotes not just “nationalism,” but selfish nationalism. And the association people are supposed to make in their minds is that selfish nationalism leads to destructive fascism (i.e. Nazis). Therefore, when you hear the term “populist,” the globalists hope you will think “Nazi.”

Also, keep in mind that the narrative of the rise of populism coincides with grave warnings from the elites that such movements will cause global economic collapse if they continue to grow. Of course, the elites have been fermenting an economic collapse for years. We have been experiencing many of the effects of it for some time. In a brilliant maneuver, the elites have attempted to re-label the liberty movement as “populist” (Nazis), and use liberty activists as a scapegoat for the fiscal time bomb they created.

Will the masses buy it? I don’t know. I think that depends on how effectively we expose the strategy before the breakdown becomes too entrenched. The economic collapse itself has been handled masterfully by the elites, though. There is simply no solution that can prevent it from continuing. Even if every criminal globalist was hanging from a lamp post tomorrow and honest leadership was restored to government, the math cannot be changed and decades of struggle will be required before national economies can be made prosperous again.

Communism vs. fascism

This is a classic ploy by the globalists to divide a culture against itself and initiate a calamity that can be used as leverage for greater centralization down the road. If you have any doubts about fascism and communism being engineered, I highly suggest you look into the very well documented analysis of Antony Sutton. I do not have the space here to do his investigations justice.

Today, we see elites like George Soros funding and aiding the latest incarnation of the communist hordes — namely social justice groups like Black Lives Matter. The collectivist psychosis and Orwellian behavior exhibited by race junkies like BLM and third-wave feminists is thoroughly pissing off conservatives who are tired of being told what to think and how to act every second of every day. And this is the point…

If you want to get a picture of America in 2016, look back at Europe during the 1930’s. Communist provocateurs, some real and some fabricated by the establishment itself, ran rampant in Europe creating labor disintegration and fiscal turmoil. The elites then funded and elevated fascism as the “solution” to communism. Normally even-handed conservatives were so enraged by the communist spitting and ankle biting that they became something just as evil in response.

The U.S. may be on the same path if we are not careful. The latest shootings in Texas will make hay for the globalists. Think about this for a moment — on one side you have Obama telling the liberals that the answer to police brutality is to federalize law enforcement even more that it already is. On the other side, you have some Republicans arguing that a more militarized police presence will help prevent groups like BLM from causing more trouble. Notice that the only solution we are being offered here is more federal presence on our streets?

I do see, though, a rather large weakness in the plan to ignite a communist vs. fascist meltdown in the U.S., and that weakness is the existence of the Liberty Movement itself. The movement has grown rather sophisticated in its media presence and prevalent in influence. It does have enough sway now to diffuse some aspects of a rise to fascism in the political Right. The only option the elites have is to find a way to co-opt us. If they can manipulate the liberty movement into supporting a fascist system, then they would be very close to winning the entire fight. This would be highly unlikely given the stubbornness of liberty proponents when adhering to their principles.

The elites might be able to get a large part of the public to take sides in their false paradigm, but if they can’t con the millions that make up the liberty movement into the fold, then their job becomes much harder.

Moral compass vs. moral relativism

Moral relativism is perhaps the pinnacle goal of the globalists. Why? Because if you can convince an entire society that their inherent conscience should be ignored and that their inborn feelings of morality are “open to interpretation,” then eventually any evil action can be rationalized. When evil becomes “good,” and good becomes evil, evil men will reign supreme.

The problem is, conscience is an inborn psychological product, a result of inherent archetypal dualities universal to almost all people. It is ingrained in our DNA, or our very souls if you believe in such a thing. It cannot be erased easily.

Moral relativism requires a person to treat every scenario as a “gray area.” This is not practical. Conscience dictates that we treat every situation as potentially unique and act according to what we feel in our hearts is right given the circumstances. This does not mean, though, that there is no black and white; or that there are no concrete rules. There is almost always a black and white side to a situation dealing with right and wrong. Moral “dilemmas” are exceedingly rare. In fact, I don’t think I have ever encountered a real moral dilemma in history or in personal experience. The only time I ever see moral dilemmas is in movies and television.

Only in television fantasy is moral relativism ever the “only way” to solve a problem. And despite the preponderance of moral relativism in our popular culture, the ideology is still having trouble taking hold. If it was so easy to undermine conscience, then the NWO would have already achieved complete pacification. We are still far from total pacification. Whoever hard wired our conscience should be applauded.

Total control vs. reality

This is where the globalists philosophy really begins to break down. The elitist pursuit of total information awareness and total social control is truly perverse and insane, and insanity breeds delusion and weakness. The fact is, they will never complete the goal of complete micro-control. It is mathematically and psychologically impossible.

First, in any system, and in complex systems most of all, there are always elements that cannot be quantified or predicted. To understand this issue, I recommend studying the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. To summarize, the uncertainty principle dictates that anyone observing a system in action, even from a distance, can still affect the behavior of that system indirectly or unconsciously in ways they could never predict. Unknown quantities result, predictability goes out the window and total control of that system becomes unattainable.

This principle also applies to human psychology, as numerous psychoanalysts have discovered when treating patients. The doctor, or the observer, is never able to observe their patient without indirectly affecting the behavior of their patient in unpredictable ways. Therefore, a completely objective analysis of that patient can never be obtained.

What the elites seek is a system by which they can observe and influence all of us in minute detail without triggering a reaction that they wouldn’t expect. The laws of physics and psychology derail this level of control. There will always be unknown quantities, free radicals, wild cards, etc. Even a seemingly perfect utopia can be brought down by a single unknown.

To break this down even further to the level of pure mathematics, I recommend research into Kurt Godel and his Incompleteness Proof. This, I believe is the ultimate example of the elites struggling against the fact of unknown quantities and failing.

Godel’s work revolved around either proving or disproving the idea that mathematicians could define “infinity” in mathematical terms. For, if infinity can be defined, then it can be understood in base mathematical axioms, and if infinity can be understood, then the universe in its entirety can be understood. Godel discovered the opposite — his incompleteness proof established once and for all that infinity is a self inclusive paradox that cannot be defined through mathematics. Keep in mind that a proof is a set of mathematical laws that can never be broken. Two plus two will always equal four; it will never equal anything else.

Well known globalist Bertrand Russell worked tirelessly to show that the entirety of the universe could be broken down into numbers, writing a three volume monstrosity called the Principia Mathematica. Russell’s efforts were fruitless and Godel’s proof later crushed his theory. Russell railed against Godel’s proof, but to no avail.

Now, why was an elitist like Russell who openly championed scientific dictatorship so concerned by Godel? Well, because Godel, in mathematical terms, destroyed the very core of the globalist ideology. He proved that the globalist aspirations of godhood would never be realized. There are limits to the knowledge of man, and limits to what he can control. This is not something globalists can ever accept, for if they did, every effort they have made for decades would be pointless.

As mentioned earlier, the issue is one of unknown quantities. Can human society ever be fully dominated? Or, is the act of rebellion against stagnating and oppressive systems a part of nature? Is it possible that the more the elites wrap the world in a cage, the more they inspire unpredictable reactions that could undermine their authority?

This might explain the establishment’s constant attention to the idea of the “lone wolf” and the damage one person acting outside the dictates of the system can do. This is what the elites fear most: the possibility that despite all their efforts of surveillance and manipulation, individuals and groups may one day be struck by an unpredictable urge to pick up a rifle and put the the globalists out of everyone’s misery. No chatter, no electronic trail, no warning.

This is why they are destined to lose. They can never know all the unknowns. They can never control all the free radicals. There will always be rebellion. There will always be a liberty movement. The entirety of their utopian schematic revolves around the need to remove unknowns. They refuse to accept that control at these levels is so frail it becomes useless and mortally dangerous. In their arrogance, they have ignored the warnings of the very sciences they worship and have set their eventual end in stone. While they may leave a considerable path of destruction in their wake, it is already written; they will not win.

— Brandon Smith

Obama TRASHES Cops… Makes SICK “Black Folks” Comment About Alton Sterling Shooting

President Barack Obama weighed in on the Dallas shooting that left five police officers dead yesterday, calling the incident “troubling.” He also managed to trashed police officers with a “back folks” statement that seemed terribly out of line.

“When people say black lives matter, that doesn’t mean blue lives don’t matter, it means all lives matter,” the president said, according to The Hill. “But the data shows that black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents.”

Obama added that we should all be troubled by the shootings because they are not isolated incidents. He also mentioned statistics indicating that black and Hispanic men were more likely to be pulled over, arrested and shot by police than white people are.
Wow. Just after five police officers were killed and one gunman admitted to police that he wanted to kill white people — especially white officers — Obama had the nerve to say that blacks are more vulnerable to violence than anyone else in our communities.

It’s a statement that was beyond disgraceful — and simply not true — but one that the Black Lives Matter movement will no doubt cling to and run with while planning more of their hate-filled rallies.

As we have come to expect, Obama weighed in on these incidents well before all of the facts were known.
The president also showed a lack of leadership when making statements that fuel the hatred spewed by the Black Lives Matter movement. He only agitates people with remarks likes these — and, make no mistake, he knows what he’s doing.

It’s despicable that our commander in chief felt compelled to make such racially charged statements when he did, but sadly, it’s not surprising.

It appears he would rather stoke the racial tensions that already exist in America than try to do something about them.

Share this story on Twitter and Facebook if you agree that Obama is way off base with these kinds of remarks and is only making things worse by making them.

Head of the ­Defense Intelligence Agency FIRED for Calling our Enemies Radical Jihadis

MICHAEL-FLYNN
For years, I have written and warned of the catastrophic consequences of Obama’s sharia-compliant national security policies. Obama scrubbed all counterterror materials of the jihad doctrine and Islam.

Here is a senior ranking casualty of Obama’s jihad.

“The military fired me for calling our enemies radical jihadis,” By Michael Flynn, NY Post, July 9, 2016:

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who is reportedly being vetted by Donald Trump as a potential running mate, was fired as head of the ­Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the winter of 2014 after three decades in the military. Here he tells the real story of his departure from his post and why America is not getting any closer to winning the war on terror.

Two years ago, I was called into a meeting with the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the director of national intelligence, and after some “niceties,” I was told by the USDI that I was being let go from DIA. It was definitely an uncomfortable moment (I suspect more for them than me).

I asked the DNI (Gen. James Clapper) if my leadership of the agency was in question and he said it was not; had it been, he said, they would have relieved me on the spot.

I knew then it had more to do with the stand I took on radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda and its associated movements. I felt the intel system was way too politicized, especially in the Defense Department. After being fired, I left the meeting thinking, “Here we are in the middle of a war, I had a significant amount of combat experience (nearly five years) against this determined enemy on the battlefield and served at senior levels, and here it was, the bureaucracy was letting me go.” Amazing.

At the time, I was working very hard to change the culture of DIA from one overly focused on Washington, DC, to a culture that focused on our forward-based war fighters and commanders. It was not an easy shift, but it was necessary and exactly the reason I was put into the job in the first place.

In the end, I was pissed but knew that I had maintained my integrity and was determined in the few months I had left to continue the changes I was instituting and to keep beating the drum about the vicious enemy we were facing (still are).

I would not change a lick how I operate. Our country has too much at stake.

We’re in a global war, facing an enemy alliance that runs from Pyongyang, North Korea, to Havana, Cuba, and Caracas, Venezuela. Along the way, the alliance picks up radical Muslim countries and organizations such as Iran, al Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State.

That’s a formidable coalition, and nobody should be shocked to discover that we are losing the war.

If our leaders were interested in winning, they would have to design a strategy to destroy this global enemy. But they don’t see the global war. Instead, they timidly nibble around the edges of the battlefields from Africa to the Middle East, and act as if each fight, whether in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya or Afghanistan, can be peacefully resolved by diplomatic effort.

This approach is doomed. We have real enemies, dedicated to dominating and eventually destroying us, and they are not going to be talked out of their hatred. Iran, for example, declared war on the United States in 1979 — that’s 37 years ago — and has been killing Americans ever since. Every year, the State Department declares Iran to be the world’s primary supporter of terror. Do you think we’ll nicely and politely convince them to be good citizens and even (as President Obama desires) a responsible ally supporting peace? Do you think ISIS or the Taliban wants to embrace us?No, we’re not going to talk our way out of this war, nor can we escape its horrors. Ask the people in San Bernardino or South Florida, or the relatives of the thousands killed on 9/11. We’re either going to win or lose. There is no other “solution.”

I believe we can and must win. This war must be waged both militarily and politically; we have to destroy the enemy armies and combat enemy doctrines. Both are doable. On military battlefields, we have defeated radical Islamic forces every time we have seriously gone after them, from Iraq to Afghanistan. Their current strength is not a reflection of their ability to overwhelm our armed forces, but rather the consequence of our mistaken and untimely withdrawal after demolishing them.

We have failed to challenge their jihadist doctrines, even though their true believers only number a small fraction of the Muslim world, and even though everybody, above all most living Muslims, knows that the Islamic world is an epic failure, desperately needing economic, cultural and educational reform of the sort that has led to the superiority of the West.

So first of all, we need to demolish the terror armies, above all in the Middle East and Libya. We have the wherewithal, but lack the will. That has to change. It’s hard to imagine it happening with our current leaders, but the next president will have to do it.

As we defeat them on the ground, we must clearly and forcefully attack their crazy doctrines. Defeat on battlefields does great damage to their claim to be acting as agents of divine will. After defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, we should have challenged the Islamic world and asked: “How did we win? Did Allah change sides?”

We need to denounce them as false prophets, as we insist on the superiority of our own political vision. This applies in equal measure to the radical secular elements of the enemy coalition. Is North Korea some sort of success story? Does anyone this side of a university seminar think the Cuban people prefer the Castros’ tyranny to real freedom? Is Vladimir Putin a model leader for the 21st-century world?

Just as the Muslim world has failed, so the secular tyrants have wrecked their own countries. They hate us in part because they know their own peoples would prefer to live as we do. They hope to destroy us before they have to face the consequences of their many failures.

Remember that Machiavelli insisted that tyranny is the most unstable form of government.

It infuriates me when our president bans criticism of our enemies, and I am certain that we cannot win this war unless we are free to call our enemies by their proper names: radical jihadis, failed tyrants, and so forth.

With good leadership, we should win. But we desperately need good leaders to reverse our enemies’ successes.

Flynn is the author of the new book, “The Field of Flight,” (St. Martin’s Press), out Tuesday.

– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/07/head-of-the-%C2%ADdefense-intelligence-agency-fired-for-calling-our-enemies-radical-jihadis.html/#sthash.t8bTkULu.dpuf

BUSTED! Billionaire Clinton Foundation Donor Caught in Illegal Scheme

Clinton-Foundation-600-LA
We would say that this was surprising but sadly it is not. We could also say that someone should be in jail for this type of corruption but it is attached to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. If this were a Republican foundation and a Republican was involved in these improprieties, things would already be in motion to make arrangements for jail food and a cot. Read the story below.
A foreign billionaire and seven-figure donor to the Clinton Foundation has been caught funding a reportedly illegal voting scheme that links straight to the Democratic National Committee and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

A computer hacker who goes by the moniker Guccifer 2.0 recently leaked emails allegedly from the DNC outlining their 2016 general election strategies — and one of them details a coordinated effort with a foreign entity, funded entirely with $100 million from big-time Clinton donor and Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss, to influence the results of the 2016 election.

The group was allegedly targeting pro-Clinton demographics for voter registration as well as “outreach, organizing, and legal and policy advocacy on voting laws”, and according to Washington Beacon reporter Lachlan Markay, that’s illegal.

The group behind the $100 million voter registration push, The Wyss Foundation, is registered as a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation. It is forbidden by law from financing direct political projects.

Critics say the document, titled “Wyss Foundation Democracy Strategy Discussion Memo,” provides clear evidence the group was violating this law, with the DNC’s participation and knowledge.

Markay writes, “The document details the scope of Democratic efforts to boost grassroots organizing, and sheds light on how some of the left’s deepest pockets are facilitating those efforts through nonprofit vehicles generally restricted to charitable activity.”

Wyss himself, as a foreign national, is also legally banned from any federal or state political donations — a rule he’d allegedly violated up to 30 times in a nine-year period, according to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Wyss has also has ties to Clinton, and had previously given between $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. Additionally, “Wyss’ now-defunct HJW Foundation previously employed Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, who received $87,083 from the group in 2013 for consulting services,” according to Markay.

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN