Friday, October 17, 2014

Turning the Tide of Billy Graham
Sept 30, 2014
By Billy Graham

Our nation was founded by men who believed in prayer. When our government was being formed, Benjamin Franklin addressed the chairman of the Constitutional Convention meeting at Philadelphia in 1787, saying, “I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, it is probable that an empire cannot rise without His aid.”

Today the world is being carried on a rushing torrent of history that is sweeping out of control. There is but one power available to redeem the course of events, and that is the power of prayer by God-fearing, Christ-believing people.

We would adapt the words of Benjamin Franklin to our day and say, “It is probable that a nation cannot keep her freedom without the aid of Almighty God.” Our first president, George Washington, led his armies to victory, but not until he had first taken time alone to invoke God’s blessings upon their cause.

Down through our history our nation’s leaders have carried their plans and hopes to God in prayer. Yet today we have come to a place where we regard prayer in our national life simply as a venerated tradition. We have no sense of coming to grips with God; we simply use prayer as a formality.

If this nation was born in a meeting based on prayer—some of its most important decisions being made only after careful prayer to God—how can we go on unless there is a renewed emphasis on prayer today? One of the reasons the United Nations has become so ineffective in handling world situations is that there is no prayer, no recognition of God. Unless the leaders of nations turn to God in prayer, their best plans will fail, just as did the plans of those who built the tower of Babel.

There are thousands of people who say prayers only in times of great stress, danger or uncertainty. I have been in airplanes when the motor died out, and people started praying. We have flown through bad thunderstorms, when all around us people who never before thought to pray were praying. It is instinctive for people to pray in a time of trouble.

Christ instructed His followers to pray, both by teaching and by example. So fervent and so direct were His prayers that one time when He had finished praying, His followers turned to Him and said, “Lord, teach us to pray” (Luke 11:1). They knew that Jesus had been in touch with God, and they wanted to have such an experience.

On another occasion He taught them to pray by way of illustration—through a parable. He told of the widow and the unjust judge who rendered her a favorable decision not because he feared her, but because of her perseverance. So Jesus said that men ought always to pray.

From one end of the Bible to the other there is the record of those whose prayers have been answered—people who turned the tide of history by prayer. Abraham prayed, and as long as he prayed, God did not destroy the city of Sodom where Abraham’s nephew, Lot, was living.

Hezekiah prayed when his city was threatened by the invading armies of the Assyrians under the leadership of Sennacherib, and the entire army of Sennacherib was destroyed and the nation was spared for another generation—because the king prayed.

Even though America is just as wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah ever were, and as deserving of the judgment of God, God would spare us if we were earnestly praying, with hearts that had been cleansed and washed by the blood of Christ.

The problems of the world will never be settled unless our national leaders go to God in prayer. If only they would discover the power and wisdom that there is in reliance upon God, we could soon see the solution to the grave problems that face the world!

Elijah prayed, and God sent fire from Heaven to consume the offering of the altar he had built in the presence of God’s enemies. Elisha prayed, and the son of the Shunammite woman was raised from the dead. Daniel prayed, and the secret of God was made known to him, for the saving of his companions and the changing of the course of history.

Jesus prayed at the door of the tomb of Lazarus, and the one who had been dead for four days came forth. The thief prayed, and Jesus assured him that this day he would be with Him in Paradise. Paul prayed, and hundreds of churches were born in Asia Minor and Europe. Peter prayed, and Dorcas was raised to life. John Knox prayed, and the results caused Queen Mary to say that she feared the prayers of John Knox more than she feared all the armies of Scotland.

John Wesley prayed, and revival came to England, sparing her the horrors of the French Revolution. Jonathan Edwards prayed, and revival came to Northampton, where more than 50,000 people joined the churches. History has been changed time after time because of prayer. I tell you, history could be altered and changed again if people went to their knees in believing prayer.

What a glorious thing it would be if millions of us would avail ourselves of the greatest privilege this side of Heaven! Jesus Christ died to make communion and communication with the Father possible. He told us of the joy in Heaven when one sinner turns from sin to God and breathes the simple prayer, “God, be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13).

In this modern age in which we live, we have learned to harness the power of the atom, but very few of us have learned how to fully develop the power of prayer. We have not yet learned that a man is more powerful on his knees than behind the most powerful weapons that can be developed. We have not learned that a nation is more powerful when it unites in earnest prayer to God than when its resources are channeled into defensive weapons. We have not discovered that the answer to our problems can be through contact with God.

Many of you do not know how to pray. Why don’t you start now by saying, “God be merciful to me, a sinner”? Let God forgive all your past sins, transform your life and make you a new person. He can do it now in answer to your prayer. That simple, direct prayer will open new horizons of spiritual victory for you and add a new dimension to your life. ©1962

Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New King James Version.

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Fed up: Anger rising across America

July 7, 2014
K.T. McFarland

Every Fourth of July we have a family dinner and take turns reading sections of the Declaration of Independence. When my kids were young they were thoroughly bored. When they were teenagers they rushed through the reading so they could ditch the family and see their friends, who weren’t subjected to such July 4th indignities. But my children are grown now, and this year brought their friends to our family dinner.

We handed out slices of American Flag cake along with copies of the Declaration and commenced reading, going around the table. My children were apprehensive their friends would think their parents were too corny, and their friends looked on politely, but unenthusiastically. The first few lines were familiar to everyone: “When in the Course of human events”…and…. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

We’re seeing the stirrings of a movement against Washington’s governing elite, an increasingly angry reaction to their abuse of power.

Read beyond those first two paragraphs, though, and you get the long list of grievances the Colonials had against the King. Some of our readers this year were in the military, two were Special Forces guys, just back from some of the fiercest fighting in Afghanistan. The rest were recent college graduates, struggling to find jobs, get apartments they could afford, and payoff college loans.

This year our reading of the Declaration clicked.

As we went around the table, each person reading a few sentences of the Declaration, the momentum picked up. People started reading with enthusiasm, then gusto, and mounting passion as they got further down the list of grievances. They started banging the table as the abuses mounted, and finished by chanting all together the repeated phrase,“Free and Independent States”.

It dawned on us that what happened in America in the 1770’s is like what’s happening all across the country today. We’re seeing the stirrings of a movement against Washington’s governing elite, an increasingly angry reaction to their abuse of power.

For the first time in all the years of reading the Declaration, I felt how angry the Colonials were. It wasn’t just about paying taxes, or being able to vote for members of Parliament. It was about a far-away government dictating to people who lived very different lives. It was about a big government that took from the people but gave very little in return. It was about an arrogant elite, deaf to the repeated petitions of the people. It was about abuse of power.

Think of what it must have been like for our forbearers. They had been carving out a life in the wilderness for over a hundred years, through their own determination, hard work and self-reliance.

They had been self governing not by design, but by circumstance, since the King and his Parliament were an Ocean away. But when the King started handing down new laws and taxes and increasing his interference in areas of life the Colonials had been accustomed to think of as their domain, they petitioned for redress. The King refused, instead sending a mercenary army to keep order in the Colonies. The Colonials fought back, hoping it would get the King to address their grievances and give them the rights of freeborn Englishmen. It didn’t work.

The Colonials had been pushed to the limit and realized the only option left to them was a clean break with the motherland. They sent delegates to Philadelphia to write a document listing their grievances with the King, laying out the case for why they had no choice but to demand independence. They insisted they had rights that no King could deny, because those rights came directly from the Creator. They signed, knowing it they were risking their lives and treasure. Here are some of their complaints, in language which sounds archaic, but with arguments which seem snatched from today’s headlines.

“He has refused his Assent to Laws… He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance. He has…exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice…. He has erected a Multitude of new Offices… He has affected to…giving his Assent to Acts of pretended Legislation.”

There is a new dissatisfaction blowing across the country. As it was in the 1770s, the movement is not coming from the seat of power or among those who make the laws. It’s coming from the "little people," who live outside the Beltway.

You see it in opinion poll after opinion poll. The majority of people think their children’s lives will not be as good as theirs. Nearly half of all Americans are no longer proud of their country. Politicians have become a despised breed.

If this trend continues, it’s hard to see how the country can continue to carry on as usual, trading off power between one Washington elite and the other.

Why? Because the indictment is not against one party or even one president, it’s a loss of faith in the entire system, and it’s been building for a while.

The current incumbent has accelerated that sense of alienation, with an administration that enforces only the laws it likes, ignoring the rest. But both Republicans and Democrats have been in on the game; they’re so busy fighting with each other over the spoils of office, that they ignore the rest of us except at election time when they want our votes.

We are now governed by elites, some the second and third generation of elites, who have decided the rest of us aren’t smart enough to govern ourselves. They believe modern society has become so complicated that government needs to be in every nook and cranny of it, making the decisions for us, for our own good. They know what’s best for us.

This growing dissatisfaction hasn’t reached a boiling point, but it shows no signs of simmering down. The signs are everywhere.

It’s the fact that a majority of Americans say they’re independents, and no longer no longer identify either political party.

It’s the libertarians who want to reclaim decision making for themselves. It’s the small government folks who see government as a great Leviathan gobbling up more and more of their treasure and freedoms.

It’s the deficit hawks who worry we are enslaving our children and grandchildren to pay off this generation's debt.

It’s a national movement that’s growing and the reason it’s such a threat to the governing elite, is that it’s increasingly young people who are attracted to it.

And it’s now about any one issue. It’s about the breakdown of government. It’s about Washington’s failure to protect our borders, about Washington’s out of control spending, about Washington’s corruption and collusion with special interests. It’s about arrogant all-powerful government officials who answer to no one, and act outraged when anyone dares question them. It’s about a Washington elite that has turned the Declaration of Independence on its head and behaves as if the only rights Americans have are the ones they bestow on us. It’s about a pervasive attitude that America works to keep Washington elites in power, instead of Washington working for us.

One of the most cogent sections of the Declaration is the recognition that it takes a lot for people to rebel and throw off tyrants. The founders human nature, “that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are Sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.”

No one knows where this 21st century, nascent political movement will go. Maybe it fizzles out because abuses of power are terrible but tolerable. Maybe Washington wises up and reverses direction. But maybe the Leviathan just gets too big to ignore and the people rise up, and vote them out of office, en masse.

Americans are slow to anger, but once they do get angry, they are impossible to stop. Just ask King George III.

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Is The Cloward-Piven Strategy Being Used To Destroy America?

July 3, 2014
By Brandon Smith

In the mid-sixties at the height of the “social revolution” the line between democratic benevolence and outright communism became rather blurry. The Democratic Party, which controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, was used as the springboard by social engineers to introduce a new era of welfare initiatives enacted in the name of “defending the poor”, also known as the “Great Society Programs”. These initiatives, however, were driven by far more subversive and extreme motivations, and have been expanded on by every presidency since, Republican and Democrat alike.

At Columbia University, sociologist professors Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven introduced a political strategy in 1966 in an article entitled 'The Weight Of The Poor: A Strategy To End Poverty'. This article outlined a plan that they believed would eventually lead to the total transmutation of America into a full-fledged centralized welfare state (in other words, a collectivist enclave). The spearpoint of the Cloward-Piven strategy involved nothing less than economic sabotage against the U.S.

Theoretically, according to the doctrine, a condition of overwhelming tension and strain could be engineered through the overloading of American welfare rolls, thereby smothering the entitlement program structure at the state and local level. The implosion of welfare benefits would facilitate a massive spike in poverty and desperation, creating a financial crisis that would lead to an even greater cycle of demand for a fully socialized system. This desperation would then “force” the federal government to concentrate all welfare programs under one roof, nationalize and enforce a socialist ideology, and ultimately, compact an immense level of power into the hands of a select few.

Cloward and Piven claimed that this could be accomplished at a grassroots level through community activism, and, that it would facilitate a more compassionate federal authority, however, there are numerous problems with these assertions.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy has nothing to do with grassroots activism, and accomplishes nothing tangible for the downtrodden poverty class. In fact, I would dare to say that Cloward and Piven as well as most social engineers are well aware that the concept ultimately only serves to give even more dominance to the establishment and pilfer even more freedom from the masses.

Cloward-Piven is not limited to the destabilization of state and local welfare programs. It can easily be used against federal level entitlements, and in reality, is much more effective against an entity with the proven tendency towards exponential debt spending. Though the federal government may be able to borrow fiat dollars through the Federal Reserve to prolong welfare rolls while the states cannot, a more volatile threat arises when debt monetization begins to wear down the purchasing power of the currency. Weakened purchasing power results in reduced consumer activity, less industrial growth, less GDP, and obviously, more poverty. The dollar has lost approximately 75% of its purchasing power since 1972, and 98% after the founding ot the Federal Reserve in 1913, and after 50 years of the so-called “War on Poverty”, nearly one third of the American population now repeatedly slips under the official poverty line.

In the past decade alone, the number of people dependent on food stamps and EBT for their survival in the U.S. has doubled from 25 million people to nearly 50 million people. Those who receive some kind of payment from the government, including those on social security, disability, and veterans benefits, are approximately 100 million. Americans on social security do not consider themselves welfare recipients because they paid into the system, however, the point remains that if the federal money tap shuts down due to overwhelming participation, the checks will stop whether you paid into the system or not.

In the end, it is the Federal Government itself that is most vulnerable to the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and I believe the goal is to set fire to ALL social structures in the U.S., then assimilate them into a new globalist system.

The tactic of overwhelming the welfare structure REQUIRES the complicity of the government itself. A grassroots activist movement cannot and will never compel federal and state governments to expand welfare initiatives if they do not wish to. If welfare programs are not expanded beyond their capacity to be maintained, they cannot be overwhelmed. Therefore, government must cooperate with the Cloward-Piven Strategy by generating more and more welfare programs to be exploited. That is to say, the elitists who control our government, regardless of their claimed political party, must WANT to arrange circumstances to allow for Cloward-Piven to be successful.

Another key component of Cloward-Piven is the existence of an immense number of poverty stricken people. Without a significant portion of the population under the poverty level, there is no mass of people to use as a weapon. Again, grassroots activists would be hard pressed to actually create the kind of poverty levels they would need for exploitation. But wait! Government, along with the aid or direction of central bankers, is able to create any level of poverty it wishes at any time by simply pretending to bungle everything it does. Once again, Cloward-Piven (much like Saul Alinsky's repertoire of propaganda scams) is far more useful to the power elite than it is to the common citizen. As former White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, famously said:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before...”

In light of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, which is at its very core a method to artificially induce crisis, the otherwise insane policy actions of the Obama Administration and preceding puppet presidents now become perfectly logical. Obama, after all, has been a long time proponent of the methods of Saul Alinsky, the left wing gatekeeper equivalent to Neo-Con godfather Leo Strauss. Cloward and Piven were also both avid followers of Alinsky, who promoted lies, misdirection, subversion, and abandonment of conscience in order to win social power at any cost (special note – Alinsky also dedicated his book 'Rules For Radicals' to Lucifer...yeah, to the friggin' devil).

Under Obama's watch alone, our real national debt including unfunded liabilities and entitlements has risen to nearly $200 trillion. Our “official” national debt has gone from $10 trillion to $17 trillion in the short time Obama has been in office. Real unemployment including U-6 measurements stands at around 20% of all Americans. Personal wealth and savings have plummeted. Wages remain in stasis while prices on necessary goods continue to rise.

In my articles 'The Socialization Of America Is Economically Impossible' and 'Obamacare: Is It A Divide-And-Conquer Distraction?', I examined much evidence suggesting that Obamacare was actually designed to fail, and that the bumbling of the Obama White House when dealing with the program was purely deliberate. When coupled with Obama's handling of the current illegal immigration conflict, I would say that the Cloward-Piven Strategy is in full force.

Why fight tooth and nail against all common sense and history, why lie openly to millions of registered voters to get the program in place, only to allow it to derail because of a poorly designed website!? Because, Obama and his handlers know full well that it will end up costing the country billions that we cannot afford, and aid in a resulting crash.

Why the sudden surge of illegal immigrants into the U.S.? Why not! The White House has made it clear that it has every intention of keeping them within America by allowing the border patrol to ship the detained across the country where they are then released. Obama's threat to use executive action to force through his own version of the immigration bill is the icing on the cake. Amnesty is essentially guaranteed, I believe, in the near term, which is why tens of thousands of Central American parents are willing to send their children on a journey where they could very well be kidnapped by sex traffickers or killed. If the White House really wanted to stop this humanitarian crisis, the President would state publicly and clearly that America is not a drive through welfare center, that there will be no free goodies at the second window, and that there will be no chance of amnesty, instead of diverting more agents to the border to ensure more illegals are shipped into the interior.

The president does not wish to stop the flood of immigrants exactly because Cloward-Piven requires their presence. Not only would this officially add millions of people to welfare rolls, but I would venture to suggest that Obama will likely include automatic sign-up to universal healthcare as part of his amnesty measures.

If there wasn't enough strain on the social welfare structure before, there certainly will be now.

I would remind readers, though, that in the final analysis this is NOT about Obama. I have seen other commentators including Glenn Beck discuss Cloward-Piven in the past, but always through the blinders of the false left/right paradigm. Obama could not have attained the levels of destabilization he has without standing on the shoulders of those political errand boys who came before him. Ronald Reagan, for instance, was also responsible for signing the Immigration Reform And Control Act of 1986 into law, which was supposed to trade the amnesty of 3 million illegals for greater border security. This new "more comprehensive" security was never implemented by Reagan. Both Republican and Democratic regimes have made our current calamity possible, and the leaderships behind both parties are nothing more than paid mascots for international financiers and globalists who have a very different vision of what America should be.

If we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of making the developing crisis about a singularly unimportant man such as Obama, then the elites get exactly what they want – an angry and desperate citizenry out for the blood of a middleman and out for the blood of each other, while they sit back, relax, and wait to swoop in as our financial saviors with strings attached.

For those naïve enough to assume that Cloward-Piven is just a well intentioned activist method, it is important to understand that even if that were so, the effect of the Cloward-Piven Strategy will never achieve the goal its creators claimed to support. In my view, it is probable that they never really intended for it to produce wealth equality or an increased quality of life.

The tactic can only decrease wealth security by making all citizens equally destitute. As we have seen in numerous socialist and communist experiments over the past century, economic harmonization never creates wealth or prosperity, it only siphons wealth from one area and redistributes it to others, evaporating much of it as it is squeezed through the grinding gears of the establishment machine. Socialism, in its very essence, elevates government to the role of all-pervasive parent, and casts the citizenry down into the role of dependent sniveling infant. Even in its most righteous form, Cloward-Piven seeks to make infants of us all, whether we like it or not.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Another Pointless War?

Another Pointless War?

We must, in John Adams' words, resist the temptation to slay the world's monsters

June 21, 2014
By Andrew P. Napolitano

As we watch the collapsing government in Baghdad surrounded by a highly disciplined and serious force of Sunni-oriented fighters that has taken control of the most populous third of the country, we must, in John Adams’ words, resist the temptation to slay the world’s monsters. This time around, the monsters are the Sunni — who ran the government of Iraq in the Saddam Hussein years and who are the ancient and persistent enemy of the Shia, who run the government today.

The political and military force that is aiming at Iraq’s capital calls itself the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Its fighting force consists of about 8,000 men, yet it has marched through Iraq quickly. Last week, as ISIS forces approached the capital, a half-million Iraqi civilians got out of their way and tens of thousands of Iraqi security forces dropped their American military gear and Iraqi military uniforms and fled. The Iraqi army — which the U.S. decimated 10 years ago — cannot defend the current Iraqi government, which is as corrupt, authoritarian, anti-democratic and untrustworthy as Saddam’s was, yet far less competent.

There is a lesson in this, and it reveals the power of religious fanaticism when resisted by unprincipled political force. ISIS fighters are motivated by a hatred of American invaders and their Iraqi defenders and an embrace of fundamental Sharia principles, which are anathema to Judeo-Christian principles. These ISIS fighters truly are monsters — they have crucified and decapitated deserters, traitors, captives, recalcitrants, Christians and Jews —_ and many Iraqi soldiers would rather join or walk away from them than resist them. The U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers by and large view themselves as defending a temporary and inconsequential government. The ISIS fighters view themselves as being on a triumphal crusade.

Complicating this is the affiliation that many of the political forces in ISIS have with the rebels fighting against President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. And adding to the politics-makes-strange-bedfellows aura of this mess is the offer of the Quds fighters from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard — which the State Department considers to be a terrorist organization — to help defend Baghdad, relying on American air power to assist it. It is almost inconceivable that we could fight side-by-side, or bombs protecting boots, with the aspect of the government of Iran that both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama have characterized as anathema to U.S. interests, and that has sworn to destroy Israel.

Hence, Obama’s dilemma is daunting. He is on record as saying that the war in Iraq was “dumb”; that the government there is secure and its forces are well-trained; that the rebels fighting Assad are freedom fighters who deserve American military support; and that the American troops he brought home from Iraq are not returning on his watch.

Should he send troops back to Iraq to defend the government we installed when we toppled Saddam? _Should American lives and tax dollars be spent in another pointless effort to bring democracy to a culture that has persistently rejected it? Should we take sides using our military in what is essentially an ancient religious civil war? Is the national security of the U.S. even remotely affected by the outcome of the current Iraqi civil war?

Since Bush persuaded Congress and the American people in 2003 that an appropriate response to 9/11 somehow was an invasion of Iraq, that country’s stability has been undermined by the U.S., and it is now ripe for the sectarian violence that is devouring it. The stated purpose of the Iraq war was to root out weapons of mass destruction, which we now know did not exist there. Then the stated purpose became regime change, because Saddam tried to kill the elder President Bush. The other stated purpose of the war was our thoughtless embrace of the fanciful Bush doctrine, which was basically the rebranding of the discredited Wilsonian nonsense that we can use force to spread democracy.

That, too, failed profoundly. In the process, 5,000 Americans died; 45,000 Americans were injured; 650,000 Iraqis died; 2,000,000 Iraqis fled the country; a half-trillion dollars in Iraqi assets were destroyed; and we borrowed a trillion dollars to invade and occupy Iraq (and another trillion to invade and occupy Afghanistan), which we still owe to the people who loaned it to us. Al-Qaida, which was not present in Iraq before 2003, is now openly there along with ISIS, its sister organization that is about to conquer the most politically important parts of the country.

America is no safer because of the Iraq war, but we are weaker. Our relationships among the people in the Middle East are far less sanguine, we have planted three generations’ worth of hatred, distrust, and lust for vengeance among Middle Eastern youth, and we have a crushing war debt. We also have American cash and military hardware, including expensive and lethal Stinger missiles, now in the hands of ISIS.

We are witnessing the contemporary incarnation of the old Sunni/Shia/Kurd rivalry that has persisted in what is today called Iraq for 1,000 years, and will persist until the country returns to its pre-modern sectarian borders and each ancient group has its own land.

There is no bona fide American national security interest in jeopardy because of the persistent Iraqi civil war, and we have no lawful right to choose a side and assist it militarily. But the American military-industrial-neocon complex wants more war. We must resist them. We should gather all Americans in Iraq, take what moveable wealth is ours and come home — and stop searching the world for monsters to destroy, as that will end up destroying us.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Mark Levin: Obama is a serious revolutionary who believes this country is built on a foundation of evil

May 29, 2014

Mark Levin really knows how to put this administration into perspective like no one else I’ve heard, and it’s because he knows exactly who they are. After listening to Obama’s speech yesterday at West Point, Levin went into a great monologue talking about who Obama really is what he believes in relation to this country. It’s fantastic.

NOTE: Below the audio is a partial transcript, but there’s even more in the audio clip so I urge you to listen to the entire clip.


I listened to Obama’s speech today at West Point and I thought to myself this man hasn’t learned a damn thing from being president. He hasn’t learned a damn thing about evil. He hans’t learned a damn thing about the greatness, indeed the righteousness of this country. He hasn’t learned a damn thing about our enemies.

He is committed to unilaterally disarming this country. He is committed to weakening this country because he’s been indoctrinated and he believes, not that this country is exceptional, but this country is built on a foundation of evil. I honestly believe this. Otherwise why would he conduct himself the way that he does?

He believes that this nation has been colonialist. He believes this nation has been treacherous to minorities all over the world, not to mention in our own country.

He believes that America needs to “change” — and I don’t mean change for the better. I mean that our constitutional system, he believes is inadequate for the objectives that he seeks.

Here at home he’s been a complete and utter disaster and many, many millions of people are suffering as a result and many, many millions more will suffer as a result.

He is serious, this president, his followers, in and out of the government, they are serious revolutionaries. I don’t care if they wear ties and jackets. I don’t care if they wear newly pressed dresses. It doesn’t matter. That’s who they are.

Obama doesn’t care if the VA runs properly or not. He’s busy building monuments to his ideology. That’s what Obamacare is all about. And all the rest of it.

He doesn’t care if there are illegal aliens. Why would he care? His whole goal is to transform the country. So he wants foreigners, from the third world in particular, to pour into the country…

He’s not looking at the United States as a nation state. He’s bigger than the United States. He’s Barack Obama! He transcends the borders! He transcends this country! That’s what’s going on.

Friday, May 23, 2014

Allen West: I know what happened in Benghazi

Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods
Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods

May 23, 21014

Today as I returned from Detroit, I had a moment that I truly felt was God sent, as I don’t believe in coincidences. It happened on one of my flights, and it was two hours I will never forget.

I was seated beside someone who personally knew one of the men who was there on the roof in Benghazi. This person was excited to share with me the “ground truth” of what happened September 11, 2012.

My seat mate drew schematics to orient me to the “time and spacing” and the direction of the attack. I learned about the repeated orders to the men at the CIA annex to stand down and do nothing — thank God two of them, Glenn Doherty and Ty Woods, lived up to their code of honor and ran to the sound of the guns, resulting in their loss of life — but the preservation of life for others, their fellow Americans.

I learned about the proximity of the staging area of the attack to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and the attackers were indeed Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated with al-Qaida. I came to understand why Ambassador Chris Stevens was there in the first place and that he had in fact requested better security but was denied – the question is, by whom? And I learned that the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade were in charge of security and were the ones who opened the gates, then fled.

I learned there are those who are being threatened with their pensions being cut off if they come forth to speak.

And I learned, as I presumed, that there was a covert weapons scheme going on in Libya, Benghazi. We had been supplying radical Islamists with weapons against Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi, effectively supplying the enemy and destabilizing that country. And it seems that there was a CIA weapons buy-back program, the aim of which was to ship the retrieved weapons out of Libya through Turkey, and to the Islamist forces in Syria.

Benghazi and the operations in Libya are shrouded in a fog of lies, deceit, manipulation, threats, intimidation, coercion, abandonment, and worst of all, potentially treason.

No, it was not about a kidnapping scheme, it was about something, as I’ve stated, that will make Iran-Contra look like Romper Room. The web of lies spun is coming apart, and all other committee hearings on this matter should be shut down.

The House has established a Select Committee — quite telling that the same has not been done in the Senate — and those involved, to include the President, MUST appear before Rep. Trey Gowdy.

And to those Democrats appointed to the committee: if you seek to obstruct the revelation of the truth, you are complicit and guilty as well.

Am I afraid because of what I now know? Heck no. I’m honored to have been entrusted, so I for one can be on the right side of history.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Why Elites And Psychopaths Are Useless To Society

May 15, 1914
By Brandon Smith

The ultimate and final goal of evil is to obscure and destroy our very conception of evil itself, to change the inherent moral fiber of all humanity until people can no longer recognize what is right and what is wrong. Evil is not a wisp of theological myth or a simplistic explanation for the aberrant behaviors of the criminal underbelly; rather, it is a tangible and ever present force in our world. It exists in each and every one of us. All men do battle with this force for the entirety of our lives in the hope that when we leave this Earth, we will leave it better and not worse.

When evil manifests among organized groups of people in the halls of power, power by itself is not always considered the greatest prize. The true prize is to mold society until it reflects the psychopathy that rots at the core of their being. That is to say, the elites, the oligarchy, the mad philosopher kings want to make us just like they are: proudly soulless. Only then can they rule, because only then will they be totally unopposed.

The problem is humanity is not only hardwired with a dark side; we are also hardwired with a conscience — at least, most of us are.

The vast studies of psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung prove an in-depth and intricate inborn set of principles common to every person, regardless of time or place of birth and regardless of environmental circumstances. In some circles we refer to this as “natural law.” All people are born with a shared moral compass that is often expressed in various religious works throughout the ages. It is a universal voice, or guide, that we can choose to listen to or to ignore. Organized psychopaths have struggled with the existence of this inborn compass for centuries.

They have tried using force and fear. They have tried abusing our natural inclinations toward family and tribalism. They have tried corrupting the very religious institutions that are supposed to reinforce our consciences and teach us nobility. They have tried psychotropic substances and medications to paralyze our emotional center and make us malleable. They have tried everything, and they have failed so far. How do I know they have failed? Because you are able to read this article today.

Two methods remain prominent in the arsenal of elites.

Convince Good People To Do Evil In The Name Of ‘Good’

This strategy is still effective, depending on the scenario encountered. Elitists are very fond of presenting mind games to the public (in TV, cinema, books, etc.), which I call “no-win scenarios.” These games are hypothetical dilemmas that require the participant or viewer to make a forced choice with only two options: The participant can strictly follow his conscience, which usually means assured destruction for himself and others; or he can bend or break the rules of conscience in order to save lives and achieve a “greater good.”

Watch the propaganda tsunami in the show “24,” for example, and tally how many times the hero is faced with a no-win scenario. Then tally how many times he ignores his moral imperative in order to succeed. The message being sent is clear: Solid morality is not logical. Morality is a luxury for those who do not have to concern themselves with immediate survival. In other words, the world needs bad men to fight other bad men.

Of course, real life is not television; and there has never been nor will there ever be a legitimate example of a no-win scenario. There are no dilemmas that require good people to knowingly sacrifice conscience or destroy innocent lives in order to succeed. There are no dilemmas with only two available solutions. All social dilemmas are fluid, which means that solutions are shifting, but infinite. Just because you cannot see the way out does not mean the way out does not exist. To fight monsters, we do not need to become monsters. Survival is meaningless unless we can prove ourselves worthy of life. This does not mean one should not fight back against evil. On the contrary, one should always fight back. But if we fight without a code of principles and honor, then we will have lost before the battle begins.

Convince Good People That There Is No Such Thing As ‘Evil’ People

Any action, no matter how horrifying, can be rationalized by the intellectual mind or the mathematical mind. This is why we are born with an emotional and empathic side to our natures. Those who embrace evil often seek to soften their image through the use of cold rationalization. They appeal to our desire to feel logically responsible and to boost our intelligent self-image.

Some people might argue that the machinations of evil are self-evident, and that philosophical examinations such as this are unnecessary. They would say that there is no need to reassert that the works of psychopathy and elitism are fundamentally destructive, but they would be wrong. I was recently sifting through some mainstream articles when I came across this jewel entitled “Why Psychopaths Are More Successful.”

The article summarizes the theories behind a new “science self-help book” entitled The Good Psychopath’s Guide To Success. Co-author and Oxford psychology professor, Kevin Dutton, states that he “wanted to debunk the myth that all psychopaths are bad.” He wrote:

"I’d done research with the special forces, with surgeons, with top hedge fund managers and barristers. Almost all of them had psychopathic traits, but they’d harnessed them in ways to make them better at what they do."

Now, three important questions need to be asked of Dutton. First, what exactly is his definition of success? Second, if such people are “better” at what they do because of their psychopathic traits, who exactly are they “better” than? Is he suggesting that a non-psychopath could not be just as good a surgeon? Wouldn’t it be preferable to be good surgeon without psychopathy, one who still cares about the well-being of his patients rather than just his own success? And third, if a person can be accomplished in a field without abandoning his conscience as a psychopath does, what good is psychopathy to anyone?

You see, elitist academics like Dutton are not interested in answering such questions in an honest way because their goal is not necessarily to outline a legitimate argument for the usefulness of psychopaths. What they really want is to make psychopathy a morally acceptable ideal in the mainstream.

Dutton does this by asserting the false notion that there are such things as good psychopaths and bad psychopaths, thereby creating a superficial dichotomy he essentially pulled from thin air. Dutton cites several character traits he defines as being common to good psychopaths.

Psychopath Volume Control: Dutton argues that a good psychopath has the ability to turn up or turn down his level of perceived empathy in order to avoid burning bridges with those around him. What Dutton fails to mention (or just doesn’t understand) is that this “volume control” is very common to the average psychopath. In fact, psychopaths tend to be quite adept at reading the emotional states of others and adapting to their moods to appear more human. This is how psychopaths end up in marriages, with families and in positions of respect in a community. This is how psychopaths become leaders. Catastrophes arise, however, when the psychopath decides he is comfortable enough that he no longer needs to hide his inability to feel conscience or remorse. There is nothing special or good about a morally bankrupt person who happens to be good at disguise.

Fearlessness: Dutton’s claim that psychopaths are fearless is simply absurd and is not based in any practical psychology that I know of. Psychopaths are afraid all of the time. What they fear most is losing what they believe belongs to them. This could be money, power or even unlucky people caught in their web. This fear might drive them to take risks in order to accomplish certain goals. But let’s be clear: Only those who take risks because they love what they do have truly overcome fear. Psychopaths are incapable of true love.

Lack Of Empathy: This is the root of the movement toward rationalized moral relativism — the argument that empathy gets in the way of success and sometimes gets in the way of the “greater good.” Dutton claims that lack of empathy gives the psychopath focus, making him skilled in high-pressure situations. In a hostage situation, he says, he would much rather have a psychopath as his negotiator. Of course, he does not consider that his captors would likely be the same kinds of psychopaths he so praises in his book.

One would conclude by reading Dutton’s position that high-pressure jobs require a lack of empathy. And of course, the jobs with the highest pressure are those in political and military leadership. The philosophy of applying positive assumptions to psychopathic qualities is the highest dream of the elite. If you and I could be convinced to see their gruesome behavior as fully necessary to the greater good, then they will have ascended to a place beyond accountability. They become like the old gods of Olympus, dealing death and destruction above the judgment of mere mortals; and we will have handed them that godhood.

Self-Confidence: I think Dutton is confused over the difference between confidence and narcissism. The average psychopath is often self-obsessed, which means he is willing to do anything to get what he wants. This drive might be impressive, but it is not a product of the kind of self-awareness required to gain real self-confidence. A parasitic tick is not necessarily self-confident when he digs into the flesh of a dog; all he knows is that he desperately wants the blood underneath.

A Kingdom Of Psychopaths

In his collected writings entitled “The Undiscovered Self,” Jung theorized according to his work with hundreds of patients that some 10 percent of the human population at any given time has latent psychopathic characteristics, with a much smaller percentage living as full-fledged psychopaths. He surmised that this latent psychopathy will often stay hidden or unconscious for most people, unless their social environment becomes unstable enough to bring out their darker side.

The purges in the early days of communist Russia and Stalinism, for example, brought out the very worst in many normally harmless citizens. Neighbor turned against neighbor, and betrayal for personal gain became the norm. The collectivist hive became an incubator for psychopaths. What Dutton’s psychopathic success theory does not take into account is the fact that America, and much of the world today, is becoming a breeding ground for morally bankrupt people. That is to say, our society is now designed by psychopaths for psychopaths, and only psychopaths could succeed in such an environment. We are all being encouraged to become more psychopathic, more evil, in order to survive and thrive.

The destruction unleashed by the psychopathy of elitism far outweighs any potential benefits that might arise from their uncompromising brand of ingenuity. Anything these freaks of the psyche might accomplish can be accomplished with far less physical and moral cost by those with self-discipline and a love of their fellow man. I would be willing to wager any power monger that if he and his miscreant organizations were to disappear, humanity would leap forward in strides never before seen. Ultimately, those who embrace evil and those who elevate psychopathy are not the key to the betterment of the world; they are obstacles to the betterment of the world.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Real Americans Are Ready To Snap

April 10, 2014
By Brandon Smith

Despite popular belief, every culture of every nation draws a line in the sand against government tyranny. The problem is, many draw this line so close to total defeat that it rarely matters. For the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, for instance, it wasn't until the Germans had already herded millions onto railroad cars destined for death camps and cornered the rest into dilapidated central housing that the ZOB resistance was formed, only to be wiped out a month later. Perhaps hindsight is 20/20, but clearly too many freedom movements throughout history waited too long to respond to the trespasses of oligarchs.

The Founding Fathers frequently struggled with the proper measure of resistance. Many colonials wanted vengeance on the British after the Boston Massacre in March of 1770, but patriots knew that the timing was not right. The battle to rally citizens to the cause and to educate the masses as much as possible on the facts took precedence over the desire to enter conflict. The Founders endured five more years of British government criminality until nearly 80 farmers and militiamen stood outnumbered on Lexington Green on April 19th, 1775 to confront an army of 700 British regulars on a mission to capture rebel leaders and destroy weapons caches. No one knew at the time that the war would be sparked that day, but everyone knew that a fight was inevitable and near.

I believe the same feeling hangs in the air of modern America for REAL Americans, and by “real”, I mean those who actually support and defend the constitutional values and principles that lay at the foundation of our society. We sense that something is coming; a great change, or an unstoppable reckoning.

The question of when to strike back is pivotal to any resistance movement. Turn to violence too soon or without proper cause in the eyes of the public, and the rebellion may lose the moral high ground and the support of the populace. Wait too long, and the totalitarian hordes may be too far entrenched, forcing the rebellion to fight from a position of strategic weakness.

There are those who might argue that America crossed the “red line” long ago and now our society is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while arguing over futile semantics. In certain respects, I can see their point. The U.S. political system is utterly lost. Anyone who still has faith in the Left/Right paradigm after two terms of George W. Bush and nearly two terms of Barack Obama is either insane, or mentally challenged. It should be obvious to Republicans and Democrats alike that our government does NOT represent the average man, and our election process is a sham. Democrats in particular should be equally furious and ashamed as the candidate they blindly worshiped to the point of cultism has now forsaken every value they thought he represented.

The legal apparatus of the U.S. is also beyond repair. Those in the mainstream who argue that grievances with government should be addressed by the courts instead of independent action obviously have not considered that the courts continuously uphold and defend legislation like that contained within the NDAA, which allows for rendition, torture, and even assassination of American citizens without trial or due process. And where are the prosecutions of Constitutional violations by the NSA? Why aren't men like James Clapper in prison for lying directly to Congress. Why hasn't Eric Holder been slapped in irons for his involvement with “Fast and Furious”? And what about the international financiers who back these politicians? How many of them have been prosecuted for their involvement in the toxic derivatives scandals that are destroying our economy to this day?

No, we lost the courts a long time ago. They will do nothing to save this country. But is the fight already over? I think not.

Nihilism is tempting for those people who are lazy and frightened and looking for a philosophical excuse to run away from making a stand. Claiming the fight is lost before it has truly begun is a longstanding tradition amongst millions upon millions of cowards through history. Every freedom fighter in every great revolution for liberty has heard the same arguments that we hear today – “It's too late to change things. The enemy is too powerful and you will be crushed. The nail that sticks up will eventually be hammered down. Your movement is a minority on the fringe and no one will support you. None of you have the guts to really follow through...”

While there is certainly much to despair in the state of our nation, I find the notion that Americans will do nothing in response misplaced and ignorant. From what I have observed, it is not a question of “if” citizens snap, but when.

With objective eyes one could easily see it during the last attempts by the federal government to pass anti-gun legislation that would have led to confiscation. Pro-2nd Amendment protests erupted all over the country (though the MSM mostly ignored them) with participants far outnumbering the miniscule groups in support of gun control. The sentiment amongst millions of gun owners and millions of Liberty Movement proponents was that we were not going to allow government enforcement of new gun laws. Period. If that meant we had to start using those same guns to put an end to government, then that was exactly what we would do. The feds, of course, buckled.

Rather than take the more dangerous and unifying direct route of federal legislation, gun grabbers have shifted strategies, isolating and targeting specific states they believe will be more pliable and easier to conquer. Connecticut and parts of New York, however, have shown that even people in the most socialist of states have no intention of complying with gun registration or confiscation. In Connecticut, only 38,000 high capacity magazines were registered according to the new gun laws, while approximately 2.4 million purchased through retail remain unaccounted for. Only 50,000 “assault weapons” were registered, while at least 300,000 remain unaccounted for. A sizable number of police are also refusing to enforce registration measures (some out of constitutional loyalty, and some out of a desire for self preservation), causing the state of Connecticut to back off of its hard line rhetoric.

I can say with full confidence that the conditions within Connecticut alone would lead to an open shooting war if officials actually attempt to enforce registration and confiscation. If Safe Act-style legislation or executive orders are ever enforced at a national level, I have no doubt revolution would follow.

The latest hotbed I have witnessed is the Bureau of Land Management attack on a cattle farm in Clark County, Nevada owned by Cliven Bundy. The BLM has so far stolen over 500 cattle from Bundy on the grounds that the federal government owns the land his family has been using for grazing pasture for generations. The confiscation was implemented under the auspices of “protection for endangered species”. The species in this instance being a desert tortoise.

The methods used by the BLM resemble a militant raid, with hundreds of agents, helicopters, and even snipers at their disposal. Adding insult to injury and making the issue a national concern, the feds have also staged “First Amendment Zones” miles away from their activities to keep protestors out.

This may seem like a minor event, a tiff over cattle grazing or possibly property rights, but there is much more going on here.

Tyranny leaves lasting scars, and each tyrannical act results in an accumulation of wounds on the public psyche that do not heal. In the end, a single event can become a trigger to unleash a torrent of rage pent up in a population for years or decades. The fight for Cliven Bundy's farm has the potential to become such a trigger.

So far, federal abuses have been primarily toward Bundy's cattle, with confiscation ongoing and suspicions that a number of the cows are being killed. Here, protestors try to stop a truck from leaving the area which they believed might be carrying dead animals. Agents respond with dogs and tasers.

However, I believe that if this situation escalates into a Waco or Ruby Ridge brand of event, not only Liberty Movement residents of Nevada, but Liberty Movement champions across the nation will indeed finally throw down the gauntlet. What does that mean? It means they are going to start shooting. Opposing groups can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but the reality is that one way or another, it is going to happen.

Discussions within the movement are far from apathetic. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of eyes are watching every move of the BLM right now, and they should be taking this fact very seriously.

The naysayers will claim that we don't have the will to take action. They are welcome to think whatever they like. But mark my words, Constitutionally minded Americans are not going to stand by and watch another massacre, nor a loss of gun rights, nor will we be entertaining violations of our freedoms for much longer. This society is on the edge of something. It's kinetic, or electric. It is not yet quite visible but it is there, reverberating in the atmosphere. My suggestion to our federal bureaucracy would be to do what they did during the gun debate, and quickly back away.

Of course, we all know they won't.

Do the elites want to stir up insurgency in order to give pretense for a larger crackdown? They very well might. But it is transparent in the way they try to mitigate dissent and offer placation that they do not want a rebellion larger than they can manage. I think it is far too late for that. I think they've pissed off too many people, instead of just enough people. I think that though most pretend-Americans will do nothing but watch in horror or hide in their hovels, the size of resistance to the tides of despotism is growing far beyond common realizations. And, when this resistance erupts, it will shock even those who fully expect it.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Chickens come home to roost for Obama

March 30, 2014
By Michael Goodwin

Today’s quiz: What do Vladimir Putin’s aggression and ObamaCare’s troubles have in common? OK, that was too easy.

It is impossible to dismiss as mere coincidence the Russian Bear’s invasion of Ukraine and the continuing mayhem of the Affordable Care Act. In their own ways, each reflects the full flowering of the policies of Barack Obama.

His chickens are coming home to roost, and what a mess they are making.

Obama’s sixth year in the White House is shaping up as his worst, and that’s saying something. He’s been in the Oval Office so long that it is obscene to blame his problems on George W. Bush, the weather or racism. Obama owns the world he made, or more accurately, the world he tried to remake.

Nothing important has worked as promised, and there is every reason to believe the worst is yet to come. The president’s casual remark the other day that he worries about “a nuclear weapon ­going off in Manhattan” inadvertently reflected the fear millions of Americans have about his leadership. Not necessarily about a bomb, but about where he is taking the country.

We are racing downhill and he is stepping on the gas. Will he stop before the nation crashes?

Ideologues love to dream, and some do it eloquently. Robert Kennedy famously said: “There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why . . . I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”

Mario Cuomo, no slouch at dreaming, nonetheless offered a caveat, saying, “You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose.”

Obama hasn’t figured out the difference. Even more alarming, he shows no signs of trying to learn. In the ways of the world, he remains a know-it-all rookie.

The view from his faculty lounge has no space for reality. Anything that doesn’t fit the grand plan is dismissed as illegitimate. So while global hot spots multiply and the world grows dangerously unstable, the president still plans to slash the military.

His trip abroad last week further secured his reputation for historic ineptitude. It wasn’t that the trip was a disaster — it never rose to that level. His presence and his promises simply made no difference.

He failed to move the European Union toward a firmer stance on Russia, created bizarre headlines by differing with the Vatican over what he and the pope discussed, and got not-so-veiled threats from the Saudis about Syria and Iran.

He could have stayed home and not done worse.

No president can win ’em all, but Obama’s foreign-policy record is unblemished by success. From east to west and north to south, America’s standing and influence have declined universally.

It is impossible for a US president to be irrelevant, but Obama is testing the proposition.

The frequent reports that Putin laughs when Obama warns of consequences can’t be far from the truth. Otherwise, Putin would be cautious instead of carving up neighbors and massing his military. It was also noteworthy that, after their Friday phone talk, ­Putin copied the Vatican and put out his own version of the discussion. Two can play the spin game, he seemed to be saying.

ObamaCare is the domestic expression of the president’s ineptitude. The law that was supposed to fix health care has become a problem for millions, and now enjoys mere 26 percent approval, a poll finds. It is proving so unworkable that the White House has given up defending it as written and instead simply changes key provisions when they prove impossible to implement or politically inconvenient.

Change No. 38 came when officials extended the March 31 deadline for signing up. Never mind that those same officials said recently there would be no extension, and that the law wouldn’t allow it.

Presto — the limits on his power are moot because the president says so. Meanwhile, aides claim they don’t know how many of the 6 million who enrolled actually paid for insurance.

A Caesar at home and a Chamberlain abroad, Obama manages to simultaneously provoke fury and ridicule. He bullies critics here while shrinking from adversaries there.

He divides the country and unites the world against us, ­diminishing the nation in both ways. His reign of error can’t end soon enough, nor can it end well.

Friday, March 7, 2014

Best Description Of Barack Obama Ever Written

Posted on December 11, 2013 by

Descendant Of Slave Owners And Traders, Not A Drop Of Blood Descendant Of Slaves, Therefore He Should Not Be Described As “African-American

Dr. Jack Wheeler The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn’t, not a genetic drop of, is ‘African-American,’ the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn’t a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British (mostly) ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

It’s something Hillary doesn’t understand – how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals’ Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.

He is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.

Jack Wheeler is a brilliant man who was the author of Reagan’s strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informative. He consults with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. He is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well-known mountain climber and adventurer.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Non-Participation And Decentralization As Primers For Revolution


Feb 12, 2014
By Brandon Smith

When writing investigative examinations on the corrupt state of American government and American economy, invariably one is met with the same set of ever cycling broken-record questions and assertions. One of the primary responses I have received and I'm sure most Liberty Movement analysts have received is this:

“Okay, now we know what the problem is, but when are YOU going to tell US what the solution is...?”

The question seems “reasonable”, but in reality, everything that is weak minded in our culture today is summed up in its content.

First, the question insinuates that there is no utility in exploring the nature of a crisis without “fixing” the situation right then and there. Often, the most complex problems of our world require years if not decades of thought and action, trial and error, before a single working solution is generated. When the problem involves a criminal government run by corporatist oligarchs bent on total globalization and centralized control of finance, society, and law, you have to expect that there will be some difficulties in finding a remedy. You will never defeat your enemy without knowing your enemy, and our particular fight requires endless analysis.

Second, I wish I could convey the palm-to-forehead agony I feel every time I hear someone begging for myself, or anyone for that matter, to overnight mail them a solution on a silver platter wrapped in perfect little pink bow. Why is it that so many Americans today refuse to offer THEIR OWN solutions to the problems they perceive in the world? Is it laziness, or stupidity, or both? They are so busy waiting for a “white knight” to come and save them they have forgotten to learn how to save themselves. Don't sit idle expecting analysts to make your life better. Become industrious. Take initiative. Think of something we haven't thought of yet. Stop being followers and start becoming leaders within your own communities.

Third, the worst of all dilemmas when dealing with the above question is that most of the time, it is being asked by people who already have a preconceived answer they want to hear. Many in our movement today want a silver bullet solution. They want magic and fairy dust. They want to end tyranny with a snap of their fingers, the press of the button, within the span of a day, or perhaps a week. They don't want to have to work beyond their normal capacity, they don't want to struggle, they don't want to sacrifice, and they certainly don't want to risk their property, livelihood, or life.

They want a civil rights style MLK/Ghandi march on Washington D.C., which has already been done over and over again leading to nothing but ever more corruption (you don't ask tyrants to police themselves, nor do you ask for their permission to change government). They want an armed march on Washington D.C. (perhaps the most tactically moronic strategy ever to be suggested year after year), leading to nothing more than a bloodbath which would only make the Liberty Movement appear weak, or insane, all in a failed attempt to unseat a bunch of politicians who are merely puppets and middle men for the financial elites. They want Generals grandstanding as purveyors of constitutionalism to initiate a military coup to remove the “evil Muslim” from his seat of power (is Obama a Muslim, or an atheist Communist? These methodologies tend to negate each other...), while the truth is, Obama is nothing more that a minor obstacle compared to the greater evil of central banking and internationalism, and a Neo-Con Republican (or provocateur General) could easily continue Obama's work without missing a beat.

And, most of all, they want something flashy, something new, something technological and glorious to solve all their woes. How many times have you heard the claim, for instance, that digital currencies like Bitcoin would “bring down” the central banks and turn the globalist empire to dust at our feet? Yet, Bitcoin's very existence relies on the web, a government dominated networking system which they can remove from our hands any time they wish.

These are not solutions, they are distractions, or worse, con-games. They are designed to fool you into thinking that you can lounge behind your computer, or walk blindly down the street with a sign or a gun, and the nation will attain renaissance without a tear or a drop of blood shed. They are pleasant lies that many people want to have whispered to them.

I have no interest in making people feel comfortable, or safe, or at ease in the nature of the task before us. I'm only interested in the truth, and the truth is, REAL solutions have already been offered to the Liberty Movement. For years we've been talking about them, implementing them, and attempting to convince others to implement them. These solutions are not easy. They are not pleasant or quick. They will require much sacrifice, and unimaginable suffering. There is no way around these tasks if we are to succeed and dismantle centralized totalitarianism in our lifetimes...


This is a simple concept that for some reason tends to confound people. If you march to the steps of the White House motivated by a desire to educate others on the hidden dangers of our political situation, then this is all well and good. But, if you march to the steps of the White House with the expectation that this gesture will somehow impress or frighten the military industrial complex into forsaking its criminal ways and step down from power, then you have fallen into a delusional paradigm.

If you are using a government controlled communications medium like the internet to educate others while the system still exists, then this is practical. But, if you really believe that you are going to exploit that same network as an offensive tool to destroy Big Brother, you are living in techno-geek dreamland.

And, if you still think that the diseased political arena has any merit whatsoever and that the system can be inoculated from the within, or that you can rewrite the rules on a whim (constitutional convention) and have those rules followed, at this point I don't hold much hope for you.

Now, I want you to imagine, just for a moment, that the government does not exist. The internet does not exist. Corporate banking chains and department stores and grocery outlets do not exist. State law enforcement organizations do not exist. State run schools do not exist. How would you go about living day to day without the bureaucracy, the welfare, the infrastructure, the safety nets? This is how ALL Liberty Movement activists are going to have to start thinking if they want to change anything.

The Non-Participation Principle is best summarized like this:

When facing a corrupt system, provide for yourself and your community those necessities that the system cannot or will not. Become independent from establishment-controlled paradigms. If you and your community do this, the system will have one of two choices:

1) Admit that you do not need them anymore and fade into the fog of history, OR...

2) Reveal its tyrannical nature in full and attempt to force you back into dependence.

In either case, you win. You have taken proactive measures to remove yourself as a cog in the machine. The machine can then of course try to demonize you, or attack you, but ultimately, they will attack from a place of social and moral weakness, and you will defend from a position of logistical and moral strength.

Stop waiting for the system to change, or collapse. Change the way YOU live and survive. Build your own localized systems and walk away.


Learn a vital trade skill, grow your own food, purchase resource rich raw land, learn self defense methods beyond what law enforcement personnel are trained in (which is not too difficult), take EMT training courses so that you can provide general and emergency medical care for your family, get your children out of the state run common core indoctrination centers and homeschool them, build neighborhood watch groups, emergency response groups, barter markets and alternative economies.

Decentralization is about dissolving our unbalanced relationship with the state and taking away their power to dictate how we live. If a core necessity is centralized in the hands of a select few, then we start producing it ourselves and remove that option from their deck of cards. You cannot fight a corrupt system if you are dependent on a corrupt system.

The very essence of globalism is centralized oversight of every aspect of our lives. When we allow ourselves to feed from the government or corporate trough because it's “easier”, we are essentially volunteering to be herded like animals. It is within the power of every single individual, no matter their age or financial circumstances, to find creative ways in becoming more independent. It is up to you. There are no excuses.


We should have no illusions that the criminal elements of our government will simply shrug their shoulders and give up. When we decentralize, we show the world how irrelevant they are. Tyrants must remain relevant to the masses, otherwise, they have no means to dominate except pure force. When that force is eventually applied, the ONLY logical response is revolution. Decentralization is not a means to “avoid” such revolution, it is only a means to strengthen our position in preparation for revolution.

There is no ideal revolutionary model because the unique nature of one's epoch determines the nature of one's rebellion. However, I can say that any revolution that does not focus on the foundational culprits behind the offending tyranny is doomed to failure. When I see the overt obsession with Barack Obama as some kind of linchpin in the development of socialism in America, I have to remind people that Obama has merely stood on the legislative efforts of George W. Bush, and so many other globalist presidents before him, in order to bring the U.S. to the current point of catastrophe. And who made these men, these so-called “leaders”? Who financed their campaigns? Who taught them the internationalist methodologies they now implement? Who really controls money, and thus economy, and thus politics in this country?

Revolution must be directed at the oligarchs, not just their mascots, and if anyone asks you to rally around a revolution that does not name central banking and international banking entities and the men who run them as direct culprits, they are probably controlled opposition. We don't need a French or Bolshevik Revolution to replace old puppets with new puppets, we need to go to the very heart of the cancer that has stricken our nation and remove it. If this means we have to physically fight back, then so be it, but we must be smart in how we fight.

In the end, the average citizen is his own defender, his own governor, his own industrialist, his own “king maker”. He may consciously realize this, or he may be oblivious. All of the solutions, all of the tools, are right there, in his hands, waiting to be used. The saddest truth of all is that the only thing holding him back from legitimate freedom is his own fear. Only when we stop avoiding the pain required to procure independence, will we finally have it.

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

The Enigma of Barack Obama

Jan 1, 2014
By Michael Walsh
What's my line?
What’s my line?

Put me down in the Roger Simon camp on this one: without wandering into Birther territory or the inconclusive musings of Jerome Corsi… who the heck is this guy, really?

To put it bluntly: nobody knows nothin’ about the president of the United States, aka the leader of the free world. And what little we do know is highly uninformative and often contradictory.

In a world where every phone call, email, text message, Tweet, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook post, YouTube, Vimeo, LinkedIn link, Google + post, blog post, semaphore, morse code, Braille, and probably burp has been recorded digitally for posterity and beyond, nobody knows what Barack Obama even got in freshman English. (Well, maybe the NSA does, but they’re not telling.)

Does this matter? I don’t know – and that’s the point. In an administration that once proclaimed that it would be transparent like no other, but now has lied like no other, one can only guess.

Obama’s unseen college and graduate school records (Occidental, Columbia, Harvard Law) are only one part of the Mystery of the Shrouded POTUS – another is the Khalidi tape, its possibly anti-Israel contents locked in a vault at the L.A. Times – but those academic records are certainly a significant part.

Has there been a modern presidential candidate about whom we know less than the former Barry Soetoro? Other than what he’s told us about himself in Dreams from My Father — a book proven even by sympathetic biographers to be filled with fabrications (“a man one step removed from his own life,” according to David Maraniss)? Has anyone ever had the audacity to run for national office without a thorough vetting by the national media, replete with quotes from those who knew him then, interviews with his high-school classmates, examples of his writing, anecdotes, etc.? Would a dope-smoking member of the Choom Gang ever have even made it into the Senate were that aspect of his background widely known? What about his alcoholic, bigamist father?

One way to look at Obama is as a man of remarkable political skills who has overcome a “compelling personal story” that would have sunk anybody else. The problem, of course, is that the media fell for the other “compelling personal story” — its own. “When the legend becomes fact,” goes the famous line from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, “print the legend.” And, boy, did they ever…

Roger’s concern focuses largely on the hidden academic transcripts, but I think we all have a pretty fair idea of what they might show: a kid of average intellect and (self-admittedly) poor work habits. Someone I know who attended Harvard Law with Obama described him to me years ago — just after he made his famous speech at the 2004 convention — as “lazy, arrogant and entitled,” a judgment that seems to have withstood the test of time. I mean, who watches this much television?

Yet in his few quiet moments, this president seeks not to escape to the delicious back-stabbing of the “Real Housewives” or the frivolity of the singing teenagers on “Glee.” By his own accounts, Mr. Obama is drawn in his spare time to shows like HBO’s “Game of Thrones” and “Boardwalk Empire,” the kind of heavy, darkly rendered television that echoes the sadness and strife that make up so much of his workday.

These days, when Mr. Obama retreats to the White House residence after a long day on the other end of the colonnade, he is working his way through the DVD box set of AMC’s “Breaking Bad,” the award-winning TV drama about a drug-dealing high school teacher. The show just ended after five seasons, but the president is way behind and frequently reminds those around him not to give anything away.

Friends say Mr. Obama is also keenly awaiting the new season of the Netflix show “House of Cards,” which starkly depicts a dysfunctional Washington — a theme that must seem all too familiar. At a meeting of technology executives last week, Mr. Obama jokingly lamented his own inability to maneuver the halls of Congress in the way of Kevin Spacey’s character, Frank Underwood.

But wait! There’s more!

But for Mr. Obama, “Breaking Bad” and “House of Cards” are hardly the exceptions to what has become a clear pattern. Mr. Obama is also a devotee of Showtime’s “Homeland,” which offers an eerily familiar mirror to the president’s own foreign policy adventures: terrorism, Iranian nuclear negotiations, drone strikes, and an intelligence agency struggling for legitimacy with Congress and the American people.

And the list of heavies continues. Mr. Obama has told people he is a big fan of “Game of Thrones,” a brutal imagining of the wars in medieval Europe. He has raved about “Boardwalk Empire” and ITV’s “Downton Abbey,” two period dramas that document the angst and difficulties that people faced during those times. And he has worked his way through the DVDs of AMC’s smoldering “Mad Men” series, telling friends that the character of Peggy Olson has given him insight into what it must have been like for his strong-willed grandmother in a world dominated by men.

Then there is HBO’s “The Wire,” which Mr. Obama has repeatedly called one of the “greatest shows of all time.”

This would be an amazing amount of boob-tubery for anybody. But the president of the United States? I suppose if your definition of the office is to give a speech now and then, then almost everything else can be delegated to, say, Valerie Jarrett. But back to Roger’s question:

More important… why hasn’t the press asked him why he does not release his transcript? Has even one of those hard-hitting reporters in the White House press room ever deigned to inquire even once? Or have they been too afraid to ask?

That’s a rhetorical question, I know. The real question is WHY are they afraid to ask about his college transcript? We can assume that some are afraid because they fear the answer, if a true one were eventually forthcoming, would humiliate them, that it would run counter to the narrative they had told themselves and others since, in all probability, early adolescence. A massive lie would be unmasked in which they had aided and abetted in the telling.

The press at the end of 2013 is at a remarkable moment. It may be – we don’t know yet – that the unreported story of 2103 (and five years previous) may finally be reported in 2014. Due to a number of factors – the Obamacare lies among them – a critical mass is forming that wants to know the truth. Whether they get it is another question. But whatever the result, a comprehensive – and accurate – biography of Barack Obama, whenever it is published, may be one of the best sellers of all time. I, for one, will certainly be anxious to read it.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter: the media’s complicity in this presidency, and its continued investment in it. For make no mistake, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 was not simply one man’s triumph (and a remarkable story, whichever way you look at it) but the triumph of a Baby Boomer media that saw in him the culmination of everything it had “fought” for. Indeed, the real credit for Obama’s election ought properly to go not to the candidate but to the manager, David Axelrod, the Jake Lingle of his day, who parlayed his journalistic background at the Chicago Tribune into a lucrative campaign-consulting business that relies heavily on his continuing contacts with his old friends to help his candidates along. How else to explain this amazing coincidence from the 2004 Senate race in Illinois that was the stepping-stone to Obama’s presidential campaign four years later?

Dealing a blow to the U.S. Senate candidacy of Republican Jack Ryan, a California judge ruled that several sealed divorce records likely to embarrass the candidate and his ex-wife should be opened to the public.

Ruling on a request brought by attorneys for the Tribune and WLS-TV, Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider acknowledged that the resulting publicity from the disclosure would be harmful to the couple’s son, a key argument Ryan had raised in seeking to keep the documents from public view.

But Schnider said he had weighed the public interest of disclosure against the private interests of the Ryans and their child. “In the end,” Schnider found, “the balance tips slightly to the public.”

Ryan is facing Democrat Barack Obama for the Senate seat being vacated by one-term Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald.

Maybe some day an honest journalist or writer will give us the complete story about Barack Hussein Obama and his (charitably) improbable rise to political power — but he or she will have to weather not only all the roadblocks the Obama team has thrown up to those pursuing the president’s full background (for FactCheck’s rather narrow definition of “sealed records,” go here), but also the ire of the Axelrod generation of journalists who control what’s left of the large institutions and aren’t about to stand by quietly while any debunking or revisionism takes place. The Obama administration is the Boomers’ nirvana, so they will not go gentle into that good night.