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

Archive for the ‘Barack Obama’ Category

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.

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.

As the country is still trying to put together the pieces of the Dallas ambush of police by Black Lives Matter, one cop says the president OBAMA is to blame.

shutterstock_369215453-750x498
William Johnson, who runs the National Association of Police Organizations, took to the airwaves to lambast the president’s lack of foresight in his treatment of groups such as Black Lives Matter, stating that their rampant radicalization making violence inevitable while the commander in chief twiddled his thumbs.

“’I think [the Obama’s administration] continued appeasements at the federal level with the Department of Justice, their appeasement of violent criminals, their refusal to condemn movements like Black Lives Matter, actively calling for the death of police officers, that type of thing, all the while blaming police for the problems in this country has led directly to the climate that has made Dallas possible,’ William Johnson, the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said in an interview with Fox on Friday morning.

“‘It’s a war on cops,’ Johnson also said. ‘And the Obama administration is the Neville Chamberlain of this war.’
“Obama on Friday morning strongly condemned the Dallas shootings, which happened at the end of a protest about the killings of two black men by police officers earlier this week, as a ‘vicious, calculated and despicable attack.’”
Barack Obama’s soft stances on several matters of national security have been called into question lately, including this fight to allow Syrian refugees to enter the country unabated, and now this inability to recognize and condemn a hate group when he sees one.
The head of a law enforcement advocacy group lashed out at President Barack Obama in the wake of the Dallas shootings that left five police officers dead, accused the president of carrying out a “war on cops.”
“I think [the Obama administration] continued appeasements at the federal level with the Department of Justice, their appeasement of violent criminals, their refusal to condemn movements like Black Lives Matter, actively calling for the death of police officers, that type of thing, all the while blaming police for the problems in this country has led directly to the climate that has made Dallas possible,” William Johnson, the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said in an interview with Fox on Friday morning.
Story Continued Below

Johnson said although the Thursday night shooting of law enforcement officers reminded him of “the violence in the streets in the 60’s and 70’s,” he pointed out how Obama’s response appeared different than his predecessors.
“I think one of the big differences then was you had governors and mayors and the president — whether it was President Johnson or President Nixon, Republican or Democrat — condemning violence against the police and urging support for the police,” Johnson said. “Today that’s markedly absent. I think that’s a huge difference, and that’s directly led to the climate that allows these attacks to happen.”
“It’s a war on cops,” Johnson also said. “And the Obama administration is the Neville Chamberlain of this war.”
Obama on Friday morning strongly condemned the Dallas shootings, which happened at the end of a protest about the killings of two black men by police officers earlier this week, as a “vicious, calculated and despicable attack.”
“Let’s be clear there are no possible justifications for these attacks or any violence towards law enforcement,” he said from Warsaw, Poland, where he is attending a NATO meeting

On Thursday, before the Dallas shootings, Obama tried to strike a balance as he talked about anger and grief in the African-American community after the latest killings by police and the feeling among some law enforcement officials that Obama has not always supported them.
“To be concerned about these issues is not to be against law enforcement,” he said. ”When people say black lives matter, it doesn’t mean blue lives don’t matter.”
Other law enforcement groups on Friday called for better relationships between cops and their communities.
DC Police Union Secretary Jimmy White admitted there was a clear racial disparity in the criminal justice system, and police officers needed better relationships with their communities.
“To put all the blame on one aspect of the problem is incorrect. You can’t just say it’s only Obama that has created this culture,” White told POLITICO on Friday. “We have to look into communities, into employment, we have to look into everything.”
“It just seems that there could be more effort by our government as far as making sure that the playing field is leveled,” the secretary said.
White also criticized trends on social media like #BlueLivesMatter or #BlackLivesMatter, saying “we focus too much” on labels instead of addressing the community’s needs.
“There is a balance between giving the public what they want and keeping our police officers safe,” he said. “We are hurting as an agency and as a union and we just wish that the events of yesterday did not happen and never happen again. We will grow, we will heal from this, and we will watch each other’s backs.”
Chuck Canterbury, national President of the Fraternal Order of Police, said he would encourage the Department of Justice to investigate the Dallas shooting as a hate crime.
“Nobody should die because of the color of their skin and nobody should die because of the color of the uniform that they’re wearing either,” he said in an interview with NPR on Friday.
Canterbury added that individual officers “are not in control of their training,” pointing out that police in Chicago “have been asking for Taser training for almost eight years.”
“Less-than-lethal methods need to be improved every day. Police officers would like that. Nobody goes to work, pins on a badge or a star and wants to end somebody else’s life,” the FOP president said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-war-on-cops-police-advocacy-group-225291#ixzz4DwKSbD6z
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

OBAMA IS RESPONSIBLE AND GEORGE SOROS FINANCED BLACK LIVES MATTER

13606837_1052125278210470_3035453771917330065_n

And Obama is worried about waterboarding? Ha! Here is how Russian-supported troops treat their ISIS captives

Russian troups12
This is how Russian-supported troops in Syria deal with ISIS captives.

And Barack Hussein is worried about waterboarding? Really?

Avast There’s an Iceberg Ahead!

One of America’s greatest philosophers once quipped, “A nickel isn’t worth a dime today” and the inverse logic of that still holds true.

On Sept. 22, 2011 in a speech to business executives Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, “Debt is the biggest threat to U.S. national security.”  When the leader of the people famous for $800 hammers and $640 toilet seats has to lecture business leaders about the perils of deficit spending we know capitalism in America has jumped the track.

After World War I the world’s monetary system was in disarray.  The victorious Allies sought to revive the gold standard.  However the structure which had been put in place after 1918 collapsed during the Great Depression. Some economists believe that the world’s attempt to remain on the gold standard prevented central banks from expanding the money supply enough to revive the world’s economies.  The problem was they couldn’t print enough money if it actually had to be worth something.

After World War II, representatives of the once again victorious allies met at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to create a new international monetary system. At the time the United States accounted for more than 50% of the world’s manufacturing capacity and also held most of the world’s gold.  Since America was the uncontested economic Superpower these leaders decided to tie world currencies to the dollar.  The value of the dollar would in turn be controlled and supported by the fact that the dollar would be tied to gold at $35 per ounce.

While the Bretton Woods System was in force the central banks were given the task of maintaining fixed exchange rates. This was accomplished by massive and continuous intervention in foreign exchange markets. When a country’s currency became too expensive in relation to the dollar, that country’s central bank would sell its currency for dollars thus driving down the value of its currency.  And if the value of a country’s money became too low, that country would then aggressively buy its own currency to drive the price up.

This Bretton Woods System worked well until 1971.  By then, due to the “Guns and Butter” economic policies of the Johnson and Nixon administrations inflation in the United States and America’s rapidly expanding trade deficit undermined the value of the dollar. As a result America urged the now recovered and economically powerful Germany and Japan to increase the value of their currencies. Both nations did not want to do this. Raising the value of their currencies hurt their exports by increasing the prices for their goods in the United States which was their largest market.

When the pressure became unbearable, when too many nations were redeeming too many dollars against America’s dwindling gold supply the United States unilaterally abandoned the fixed gold value of the dollar allowing it to “float.”  Floating with relationship to money means it is allowed to fluctuate when compared to the currencies of other countries. Immediately the value of the dollar fell substantially when compared to other currencies, especially those of Germany and Japan.

This caused turbulence in the economies of nations and sent shockwaves through the political systems of the world.   In consequence the leaders of the major countries made an effort to revive the Bretton Woods system.  They came together in 1971, and reached the Smithsonian Agreement which for the first time allowed for the negotiation of fixed exchange rates.  However, this attempt soon failed.

In 1973, The United States and the other major economic powers agreed to a new system known as Managed Float.  This meant that central banks would still intervene with the buying and selling of their own currencies to eliminate any changes that might be perceived as too dramatic.

How long will this system of floating money, fiat currency, and systemic debt last?

Since I started with a quote from my favorite American philosopher, Yogi Berra I will frame my comments about the end result of America’s love affair with monopoly money and ever growing debt with another nugget from this source of double think profundity, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”

You know, I know and anyone who has enough economic awareness to realize you can’t spend more than you make forever knows that our present governmental financial framework is unsustainable.  Why?  Apparently our leaders believe you can spend more than you make forever.

If you have ever tried to manage your Visa payments by charging them to MasterCard you know the end of that game.  Our leaders have pawned our grandchildren’s future for the votes they buy with social programs, tax giveaways, and bail-outs.  However it is hard to lay all the blame on the shoulders of the perpetually re-elected.  The government is the people writ large.  Almost every household in America is in debt.  Almost every business in America is in debt.

Debt is not a bad thing in and of itself.  Actually it is one of the most liberating inventions in the world.  It allows economic activity to grow based upon future activity instead of just on current holdings.  This provides a multiplier effect that has given rise to the modern world.

However, when we spend more of the future than the present can service we have inverted the pyramid and are inviting a correction.  Even if the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media are blathering on about how good the stock market is doing, that the pretend unemployment rate is falling, that there is no inflation, and that the President says everything is coming up roses, the alternative media knows the present course is unsustainable.  Unsustainable. That word is spoken day after day on Fox and printed multiple times every day online from thousands of blogs, magazines, and newspapers.  All it means is it can’t last forever, or as an alarmist might say, “A crash is coming!”  Or as the economic pirates who sail the crony capitalist seas might say, “Avast there’s an iceberg ahead!”

Sure the stock market is flying high.  With the Fed pumping 85 billion a month into the banking system why wouldn’t it?  With that kind of money coming in why not play the Lotto?  Sure the unemployment rate is falling as long as you don’t count the people who have quit looking for a job.  Sure there’s no inflation as long as you don’t count energy or food.  And of course the President says everything is getting better all the time that is what his teleprompter tells him to say.

So, how long will this system of floating money, fiat currency, and systemic debt last?  None of us gets to live in the world we grew up in because the world moves too fast.  Things change. What was science fiction yesterday is your cell phone today.  One thing we can know for sure is that it isn’t over till it’s over.  Yet from a realistic evaluation of the deep hole we have spent ourselves into the future isn’t what it used to be and if the world were perfect it wouldn’t be.

Is there any way to stop this train wreck before we hit the wall?  Can we reign in Washington and stop the money borrowed from the future that the best and the brightest are spending?  What do you think?  I wish I had an answer to that because I’m tired of answering the question.

What do we know?

We know that the record breaking new people elected to the House in the great Tea Party victories of 2010 and 2014 affirmed Boehner as the leader of the co-opted opposition, voted for multiple debt ceiling increases, and renewed the Patriot Act.  Now Mr. Ryan is carrying on the failed tradition bailing out Puerto Rico and reaching across the aisle to pass a 1.1 trillion dollar porkulus budget that funds BHO’s fundamental transformation of America.  We know that another Progressive Republican à la Romney had no chance to beat BHO and we know it probably wouldn’t have made any difference if he did.

Now along comes The Donald facing off against a restoration of the Billary interlewd.  Is there any chance of turning this Titanic around or at least altering course before we hit the iceberg of insolvency and impotence?

At least with Billary we know where we will be headed, into the dustbin of History.  With Mr. Trump we are headed into uncharted waters.  Who knows what he will do?  I suspect even he doesn’t.  And as America’s greatest philosopher once said, “If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.”

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2016 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

BEST OF POLITICS Insider Reveals TRUTH Behind Obama’s Transgender Push… And It’s SCARY

tranny-at-urinal_400

As a self-described “progressive” president, it has come to no surprise that Barack Obama has been pushing for more accommodations for those who identify as transgender.

While the recent commotion over transgender accommodations has focused mainly on public restrooms at businesses, Obama has apparently been pushing for the same accommodations for transgender kids at public schools.

In fact, the White House has been “aggressively engaged” in the fight to allow transgender students use whichever bathroom they please at school, a top Obama appointee in the Department of Education reportedly told a group of LGBT activists, according to The Daily Caller.
DOE Assistant Secretary for the Office of Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon made the assurance during her keynote address at an LGBT summit co-sponsored by the White House and Equality Michigan, a liberal activist group.

Officials from seven different federal agencies attended the event, according to the Equality Michigan website.

Equality Michigan has been pushing for Michigan schoolchildren to be able to choose their name, gender and bathroom, all without parental knowledge or input.
DOE Assistant Secretary for the Office of Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon made the assurance during her keynote address at an LGBT summit co-sponsored by the White House and Equality Michigan, a liberal activist group.

Officials from seven different federal agencies attended the event, according to the Equality Michigan website.

Equality Michigan has been pushing for Michigan schoolchildren to be able to choose their name, gender and bathroom, all without parental knowledge or input.

Executive director Steph White reportedly emailed supporters after the event, calling it “a great catalyst that will propel our collective work forward.” The email included an excerpt from Lhamon’s remarks, which White called “refreshingly clear,” according to The Daily Caller.

Lhamon and the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights has ruled that schools will be in violation of Title IX if they do not allow transgender students to choose which bathroom and locker rooms they feel comfortable using.

Giving private, single-user bathrooms is not a sufficient accommodation, according to the DOE. Instead, schools must allow boys who think they’re girls to shower and change alongside actual girls.
A federal appeals court upheld this leftist interpretation last week, ordering a rural Virginia school to allow a biological female to begin showering and changing alongside male students. The district court had ruled in favor of the school’s interest in protecting students, but Judge Henry Floyd, an Obama appointee — of course — wrote the court opinion that overruled that decision.

But, that wasn’t the first time the administration has forced its agenda on the public. Last November, Lhamon ordered a school district in Illinois to allow a biological male to use the girls’ showers and locker rooms. The assistant secretary threatened to pull the district’s federal funding if it didn’t comply — so, of course, it eventually backed down and accepted the order.

Folks, this is even more scary than the bathroom at Target accommodating transgender customers. We are talking about school-aged children. We are talking about hormone-raging teenage boys and girls having access to our daughters and sons in the most private and vulnerable of places where parents are nowhere around.

Obama Claims to have taught Constitutional Law, but Here’s What He Really did at the University of Chicago

During a townhall meeting on guns, which I wrote about here, Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah said, “I believe in the Second Amendment. It is there, written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this — I get it.” However, one writer has sought to clarify that Obama was not actually a professor, which means he never taught constitutional law.
Karin McQuillan writes at American Thinker:
Obama was never a professor; he was a lecturer. He did not have the qualifications to be a professor. Obama never published a single law paper. He was hired by the University of Chicago when they learned he had been given a book contract on race and law directly after graduating from Harvard. There was no book – just the contract, which he later reneged on. This is not the normal level of accomplishment for a University of Chicago professor or even lecturer.
Well, I suppose Obama’s deception and outright lies are par for the course. So, no one is surprised by them. In fact, many have questioned his mental stability as a result of his chronic lying. The irony is that he has used the mental health issue to go after people’s guns, especially our veterans.
So, if he didn’t actually teach constitutional law as he claims, then what did he do?
McQuillan continues:
Obama did not specialize in the Constitution. Obama cared about and taught only one subject: race. One course was about race in the Constitution. It is on this flimsy basis that he attempts to pawn himself off as a constitutional scholar.
As the New York Times explains, Obama the lecturer taught three subjects only: “race, rights and gender.”
His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. …His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law…
Well, that certainly explains what he has promoted, doesn’t it? Each and every one of those things that he lectured on was nothing more than the very things he has used to divide our country in order for his criminal administration to take advantage of the people and oppress them.
I’m thankful to Ms. McQuillan for pointing this out. It’s just another reason that Congress should be drawing up articles of impeachment, but because they are too cowardly to do it because they’ll be called racist, they are just as guilty of covering for the liar-in-chief and are no more trustworthy than he is.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/01/obama-claims-to-have-taught-constitutional-law-but-heres-what-he-really-did-at-the-university-of-chicago/#j1dGyUYTxDifvtid.99

Obama Won’t Hit Islamic State Tankers, Says Drivers Are “Civilians”

Real-Threat-590-LA

Politicians should stay out of military strategy.
This has been confirmed, too. I first heard about this last night, Fox News Special Report. Get this. So here’s what happened. I didn’t have any backup for this. I’ve got TV on in the background, I’m doing other things, and during Special Report last night, there was a reason provided for why we have not hit any ISIS oil centers or transportation depos or trucks or any of that, and I was incredulous when I heard it. I said it’s gotta be true, it’s Obama, but a part of me couldn’t believe it. We have not hit any oil tanker trucks specifically for the last several years because the Obama administration had decides the drivers were civilians and therefore could not be killed.

You know, after the French attacks, last Friday, the French went in and had a big hit on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters in Syria. And there was a question that was asked shortly after that. Why is Raqqa still standing? I mean, it’s been the ISIS headquarters for who knows how long. Why is it still there for the French to take out? And we find out that Obama never hit it and he hasn’t hit anything to do with the oil fields, the oil industry, oil wells and fields and areas that ISIS has commandeered, it’s the primary source of money, fuel, and fund their operations, and we haven’t hit it.

The usual explanation is one found in environmental concerns. “Well, we don’t want to hit those oil fields, my God, can you imagine the eruptions and the potential fires and the pollution and the economic or ecological damage? No, no, no, we can’t go out and hit the oil fields. No, no, no, no, no.” Well, it turns out none of that was the reason we left them alone. Despite the fact that these oil tankers are transporting oil that has been used to pay for ISIS’ murderous projects, we didn’t hit those trucks because the Regime said they’re more than likely driven by civilians.

And here’s the backup for it. It’s from the Washington Free Beacon: “US military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike.” This is according to congressman to Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage.”

It looks like it is more of the restrictive rules of engagement that has our hands tied in Afghanistan. “The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the US campaign to combat the Islamic State.” So we’re not even serious about this, folks. Remember the purpose of armies and the reason for war is to kill people and break things.