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 ‘Democrat Party’ Category

Paul Ryan Joins Hillary’s Side In Attacks On Trump

Paul-Ryan-17-800x350
Joining in on the left’s recent attack against his own party’s nominee, House Speaker Paul Ryan added his two cents worth to the twisted debate over a fallen Muslim soldier.

Ryan released a statement Sunday: “As I have said on numerous occasions, a religious test for entering our country is not reflective of these fundamental values. I reject it. Many Muslim Americans have served valiantly in our military and made the ultimate sacrifice. Captain Khan was one such brave example. His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan — should always be honored. Period.”

Breitbart called Ryan a “double agent” and noted that “Ryan did not mention that Trump has recently made clear that his plan to curb Islamic migration will focus on geography and regions. Nor did Ryan mention that — as many, including Jeff Sessions and Andrew McCarthy, have pointed out — religious screening is, in fact, constitutional.”

Also noted is that Captain Kahn died in 2004 in Iraq in a war which Hillary Clinton voted for, and which Trump opposed.

While Ryan was so quick to join the media frenzy surrounding Kahn and the attacks against Trump, Ryan recently shunned several mothers of children who were killed by illegal aliens as they tried to meet with him.

A religious test for entering our country is not reflective of America’s fundamental values. I reject it. pic.twitter.com/DdsYj2XoLS

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) July 31, 2016

Trump clarified his stance in several Twitter statements:

This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S. Get smart!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2016

WICKED & HILARIOUS: Brutal Anti-Hillary Ad Is UPSETTING Hillary’s Campaign – So SPREAD It!

What kind of feminist gives a disgusting, sex-crazed pig a pass? Hillary-the-Feminist doesn’t say much about Bill’s philandering.

The media won’t touch it, but Trump is reminding everyone about Bill’s serial womanizing and so should you!

Share this brutal Anti-Hillary ad EVERYWHERE!

antiHillary-ad
Donald Trump’s philosophy is never to use a scalpel when a meat ax is available, and so it is with his attack on the Clinton scandals of the 1990s. And yet, in slamming Hillary as Bill’s “enabler” and daring to invoke the allegation of rape against Clinton, Trump is again demonstrating his unsurpassed ability to needle his opponents and expose their vulnerabilities.
Hillary Clinton’s self-image as a feminist champion has always been at odds with her political partnership with a serial womanizer. Hillary tends to get a pass, because the 1990s were long ago, the media often scold anyone who brings up the scandals, and most politicians hesitate to talk about someone else’s marriage. Unconstrained by these boundaries, Trump is hitting her with his characteristic abandon…
…Hillary’s defenders say this is tantamount to blaming her for Bill’s infidelities. Of course, she’s not responsible for his philandering. But as a fully vested member of Bill’s political operation, Hillary had as much interest in forcefully rebutting allegations of sexual misconduct as he did.
The Clinton campaign in 1992 reportedly spent $100,000 on private-detective work related to women. The approach, when rumors first surfaced, was to get affidavits from women denying affairs — the reflex of most women is to avoid exposure — and, failing that, to use any discrediting tool at hand.

Dems Go Nuts Defending Muslim US Soldier’s Family, Then Chilling Truth Comes Out

It was the speech that the media can’t stop bringing up as the latest gambit against Donald Trump: The appearance of a Muslim Gold Star family at the Democratic National Convention, blaming Donald Trump for “sacrificing nothing and no one.”

During the speech, Khizr Khan, father of Army Capt. Humayun Saqib Muazzam Khan, lambasted Donald Trump’s temporary pause on immigration from countries with links to terrorism, arguing his son “loved America.”

In the media’s coverage of the incident, one fact seemed to predominate: That Khan was one of 14 Muslims killed in action after 9/11.
However, there was one thing that they didn’t point out: namely, that this is the same number of non-Muslim U.S. soldiers killed by Muslim U.S. soldiers in terror-related attacks during the same period.

This is according to a report by House Homeland Security Chair Peter King, who notes two major terror attacks conducted by Muslim U.S. military members.

Perhaps most famously was the attack by then-Army Maj. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas, back in 2009, which killed 13, including 12 soldiers. Sometimes forgotten is the attack at the start of the Iraq War in 2003, when then-Army Sgt. Hasan K. Akbar killed two and wounded 14 in an attack at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait.

Let’s be clear: Capt. Humayun Saqib Muazzam Khan was a hero, and our deepest condolences go out to his family. However, his sacrifice is not proof that there isn’t a problem with Islamic terrorism, and this is the fact that proved it.
The blame here doesn’t lie with Trump or the Khans, but instead the Democrat politicians who willfully exploited this man’s loss for cynical gain. The logic behind the messaging — that one Muslim died for our country, so therefore there is no problem with Islamic terrorism — is prima facie absurd.

But logic wasn’t what Democrats were going for. They were going for emotion. And at the end of the day, the Islamic State group grows stronger, and our power to fight it both abroad and within our borders grows weaker.

An open letter to Mr. Khizr Khan

By Ray Starmann

Editor’s note: The following column originally appeared on the website US Defense Watch. It is reprinted with permission.

Dear Mr. Khan,

I, like millions of Americans saw your speech at the DNC on Thursday night.

I wish to offer my sympathy for the death of your son, Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in action in Iraq.

As a former US Army officer, and a veteran of the Gulf War, I can certainly understand the pain and anguish that you and your wife endure every day.

Your son died saving the lives of his fellow soldiers. As Jesus told his disciples, according to the Gospel of John, Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

2016 Election Headquarters
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.
See Latest Coverage →
Captain Khan is a hero. I am sure the soldiers he served with regard him as one. I know you and your wife do. Rest assured that millions of veterans regard your son as a hero as well.

To paraphrase from the Book of Ecclesiasticus, your son’s name liveth for evermore.

Your son made the ultimate sacrifice for his country, a country that was new to you and your family and one which you openly embraced and certainly love.

When you and your family arrived to America from Pakistan, you assimilated into our country. You adopted American ways, learned our history and apparently you even acquired a pocket Constitution along the way. Good for you sir.

But, there are many Muslims in America who not only have no desire to assimilate, but wish to live under Sharia Law.

That is unacceptable to Americans. There is only one law of the land. That is the U.S. Constitution.

As you well know, Mr. Khan, we live in violent times, dangerous times. Muslim madmen from ISIS and other radical Jihadi groups are on a murder and terror spree across the globe.

Your religion of peace, Islam, is anything but that in 2016. That is a fact that is confirmed every time a Muslim shoots, bombs, beheads and tortures innocent men, women and children. This does not mean that every Muslim is a terrorist, but most terrorists, sir, are indeed Muslims.

A Muslim terrorist attack has become the sign of the times.

Regardless of what the feckless, naïve, leftist ideologue Barack Obama and his dimwitted colleagues John Kerry, Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel state, the United States and the West are at war with Radical Islam. It is the job of the president of the United States to protect his nation from all enemies; foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama romanticizes Islam and refuses to accept reality, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people across the world.

Groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda have one goal, the complete destruction of the Judeo-Christian culture, our religions and our way of life.

Many Americans have families that have been here for decades, even centuries. Many families like mine have relatives who fought in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm. Some families have relatives who fought in the American Revolution.

We don’t plan on letting our country be devoured by Muslim maniacs. We are Americans sir, and not unarmed, socialist European zombies. We will do what is necessary to protect the United States. While many Democrats and liberals see the world through rose colored glasses, conservatives understand that there is good and evil in this world. Evil must be destroyed before it destroys us.

Strong measures, wartime measures, must be taken to protect this country from those that wish to annihilate us and our way of life.

Mr. Trump’s plan to temporarily halt immigration from Muslim countries that are known to either support terrorism or harbor terrorist groups is not only pragmatic, but indeed it is constitutional. It is the constitutional duty of the president of the United States to protect this nation.

There is simply no way to vet hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees from war zones like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Europe is being destroyed because reckless leaders like Angela Merkel have opened the continent’s doors to a flood of over one million undocumented Muslims arriving with nothing more than a bad attitude and a haversack of Jihad.

Do you think Americans are stupid? While the left lives in a dream world, the right does not. Mr. Trump understands the threat to his nation and the threat, sir, is not from Swedish Lutherans named Anna and Lars. The threat, sir, is from radical Islam.

How in God’s name are U.S. immigration authorities supposed to know the true intentions of a 22-year-old Syrian man? It is impossible. You know it is impossible.

How in God’s name are U.S. immigration authorities supposed to know the true intentions of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees and thousands of other sundry Muslims who wish to arrive on our shores?

It is impossible. You know it is impossible.

Whether you, your wife, the Muslim world and millions of Democrats are offended by Mr. Trump’s realistic view of the world is irrelevant.

Whether you, your wife and son would have been prohibited from emigrating from Pakistan to America under Mr. Trump’s wartime plan is irrelevant. The security of this great land supersedes your desires and the desires of others who wish to come here now. The United States of America has no obligation to open its doors in order to placate foreigners and liberals in our government.

To adopt any other course but Mr. Trump’s would be a cause for further endangering the lives of Americans every day. That, sir, is unacceptable.

You attacked Mr. Trump in front of a worldwide audience, yet you can’t understand the fact that he defends himself against attacks from you, Hillary Clinton and the left. What else is one to do sir?

We must live in a world of reality, not a world of denial, delusion and fantasy the Democrats inhabit every waking day of their lives.

Radical Islam is the enemy of everyone on this planet who believes in freedom and justice. Until it is destroyed, this nation must protect itself from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Sincerely,

Ray Starmann

Ray Starmann is the founder of US Defense Watch. He is a former U.S. Army Intelligence officer and veteran of the Gulf War, where he served with the 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry, 3rd Armored Division “Spearhead!” Mr. Starmann was a contributing writer for several years at SFTT.org, founded by the late Colonel David Hackworth.

CLINTON CASH

Wikileaks Releases Nearly 20,000 Hacked DNC Emails

Little-Debbie-Bulshit-252x300

The release could cloud the upcoming Democratic party convention, which kicks off next week in Philadelphia.

It is unclear how Wikileaks obtained the records, but the release comes weeks after a hacker (or hackers) going by the name Guccifer 2.0 began releasing records obtained through the DNC’s computer systems. The hacker claims to be Romanian, but many suspect that the records were taken by a team of Russian hackers.
Guccifer 2.0 has said that they obtained DNC emails. Other documents released by the hacker(s) include internal planning memos and databases of Democratic donors.

Wikileaks has released nearly 20,000 emails it says are from the accounts of Democratic National Committee officials.

The release could cloud the upcoming Democratic party convention, which kicks off next week in Philadelphia.

It is unclear how Wikileaks obtained the records, but the release comes weeks after a hacker (or hackers) going by the name Guccifer 2.0 began releasing records obtained through the DNC’s computer systems. The hacker claims to be Romanian, but many suspect that the records were taken by a team of Russian hackers.
Guccifer 2.0 has said that they obtained DNC emails. Other documents released by the hacker(s) include internal planning memos and databases of Democratic donors.

The DNC, which is chaired by Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has acknowledged that their systems were infiltrated. The party has not commented on specific information released through the hack.

According to Wikileaks, which is operated by Julian Assange, the release is “part one” of a new series it is calling “Hillary Leaks.”

The emails come from the accounts of seven DNC officials: communications director Luis Miranda, national finance director Jordon Kaplan, finance chief of staff Scott Comer, finance director of data and strategic initiatives Daniel Parrish, finance director Allen Zachary, senior advisor Andrew Wright and Northern California Finance Director and the finance director for northern California, Robert Stowe.

The emails range in date from Jan. 2015 to May 25 of this year.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/22/wikileaks-releases-nearly-20000-hacked-dnc-emails/#ixzz4FL16J0uJ

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

HILLARY MUST COME CLEAN ABOUT HUMA ABEDIN

8_4_2015_clinton28201
Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Affairs Department website contained a passage extolling jihad: “The Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world…” (As published by The Middle East Media Research Institute) The Saudi government and some of its influential radical Islamic citizens and groups are pursuing the export of jihad in two ways. The first is through what has been referred to as “civilization jihad.” Saudi Arabia has spent billions of dollars in funding Sunni mosques, madrasas, and Sunni cultural centers all over the world, which spread the Saudis’ radical Islamic Wahhabi ideology. However, Saudi Arabia’s jihad also includes the support of terrorism. A cable released by WikiLeaks under then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s name stated: “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

The Muslim World League is an organization with ties to jihadist terrorist groups, including Hamas and al Qaeda. The Muslim World League was founded by members of the Saudi government. Abdullah Omar Naseef exemplifies the connection between the Saudi government and this terrorist-supporting organization. He served as Secretary-General of the Muslim World League from 1983 to 1993. He also served as Vice-President of the Kingdom’s Shura Council. In addition, he founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which, according to former Assistant United States Attorney Andrew McCarthy, seeks to “grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West,” and to “infiltrate Sharia principles in our law, our institutions, and our public policy.”

The Muslim World League escaped being placed on the list of terror groups sanctioned by the United States shortly after the 9/11 attack, reportedly due to concern by President George W. Bush’s administration about embarrassing the Saudi government. Nearly thirteen years later, the Saudi government is still getting a free pass. The American people have still been denied access to the portion of the 9/11 Commission report relating to any Saudi Arabian government ties to the 9/11 hijackers.

Into this morass steps Huma Abedin, the co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and a person likely to have significant influence in a Hillary Clinton White House. Huma Abedin has had murky associations in the past with the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which not only is a radical Islamist group in its own right but, as Breitbart has reported, was “located in the offices of Saudi Arabia’s Muslim World League.”

Huma grew up in Saudi Arabia, where she was exposed to the Wahhabi ideology during her formative years. The Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, has been an Abedin family affair. Huma herself served as the assistant editor of the institute’s journal for a dozen years until she joined Hillary’s State Department. Abdul lah Omar Naseef was on the board of advisers of the journal while Huma was its assistant editor.

Hillary Clinton owes the American people an explanation of the role that she would foresee for her close confidante, Huma Abedin, in a Hillary Clinton administration. And Huma Abedin owes the American people a full accounting of the associations which she and her family have had with any radical Saudi-backed Islamic groups, such as the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs and its co-located Muslim World League, or radical Islamic Saudi individuals such as Abdullah Omar Naseef.

It’s not as if Hillary is unaware of Saudi Arabia’s connection to terrorism. As mentioned earlier, a cable sent under Hillary’s name while she was Secretary of State warned that Saudi Arabian donors “constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” Following the Orlando shooting, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president said: “It is long past time for the Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism.”

It’s also obvious that Saudi Arabia and ISIS share the same basic underlying Islamic supremacist and jihadist ideologies, despite the Saudi government’s protestations that it is committed to fight terrorism.

For example, ISIS beheads apostates. Saudi Arabia treats apostasy as a capital offense. They are both following literally the path of Prophet Muhammad’s sayings, collected in what is known as the Hadith: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 9.84.57)

ISIS kills and persecutes Christians. It destroys Christian holy sites. Saudi Arabia does not allow public worship of any religion other than Islam. It has even arrested Christians praying in a private home. Its religious leader, the Grand Mufti, has called for destruction of all Christian religious sites in the Arabian Peninsula. Smuggling Bibles into the country is a capital offense. Persecution of Christians, Jews and other “non-believers” by ISIS and Saudi Arabia is also based on core Islamic teaching, rooted in the Koran itself. Infidels are regarded as Muslims’ “inveterate enemies.” (Sura 4:101) Muslims are directed to “seize them and put them to death wherever you find them, kill them wherever you find them, seek out the enemies of Islam relentlessly.” (Sura 4:90)

ISIS beheads suspected homosexuals or throws them off rooftops to die. The Saudi judiciary is calling for capital punishment against homosexuals who display their sexuality in public or on social media. Again, ISIS and Saudi Arabia are both following traditional Islamic teachings. Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying, “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.” (Hadith: al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152)

Finally, Saudi Arabia, like ISIS, believes in exporting its Islamic ideology as widely as possible. ISIS has declared its goal to expand until its flag “covers all eastern and western extents of the Earth, filling the world with the truth and justice of Islam.” Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Affairs Department website contained a passage, quoted at the beginning of this article, which talks about raising “the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world…”

Huma Abedin was brought up in Saudi Arabia and was subject to the influence of the very kind of Saudi individuals and groups supporting terrorism that Hillary Clinton has warned about. If Hillary is as concerned as she says about Saudi-funded terrorism and its export of radical Islamist ideology, she must fully address the real concern of many Americans that she may bring an individual susceptible to such ideology into the inner circle of the White House.

Guess Which Political Party Runs the Top 5 Financially Solvent States in America?

A recent study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University divided all fifty U.S. states – plus Puerto Rico – according to their financial solvency. The top five financially solvent states happen to be run by Republicans. And four of the bottom five are run by Democrats.
The study considered five different categories to rank each state: cash solvency, budget solvency, long-run solvency, service-level solvency, and trust fund solvency.

The study defined cash solvency as whether a state has “enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills.”

Budget solvency deals with whether a state can “cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues” or whether it will have a “budget shortfall.”

Long-run solvency refers to whether a state can “meet its long-term spending commitments” and whether there will be “enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-tem fiscal risks.”

Service-level solvency refers to how much “fiscal slack” a state has to “increase spending if citizens demand more services.”

Trust fund solvency is simply how much debt a state has and how large its “unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities” are.

Considering these five factors, the study found that these were the top five financially solvent states, ranking from first to fifth: Alaska, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Financially-Solvent-900x582
Considering the same factors, the study found that these were the bottom five states: Kentucky, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.

All of the top five financially solvent states are GOP-run. Of the bottom five, only Kentucky is led by Republicans. The rest are Democrat-controlled. Puerto Rico ranked number fifty-one.

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