Monday, January 27, 2020
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Saturday, January 25, 2020
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Friday, January 17, 2020
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
The Virginia Gun Rights Conflict: Best And Worst Case Scenarios
This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Alt-Market.com.
In my article 'Trump Impeachment And The Civil War Scenario',
I warned that conservatives and leftists are being pushed to the brink
of a shooting war using various methods of social manipulation and 4th
Gen warfare, and that this conflict, if dictated by gatekeepers of the
false Left/Right paradigm, would only benefit establishment elites in
the long run. Internal division among the public is designed to keep us
at each other's throats while losing focus on the real enemies.
Hard line democrats and the social justice cult are merely a symptom of the disease, they are not the source of the disease. However, I also acknowledge that the rift between conservatives and the political left has become so extreme that reconciliation is almost impossible. War might be unavoidable, and the globalists love it. If they can pretend like they had nothing to do with creating tensions, and if conservatives are so blinded by anger against Democrats that they refuse to admit that some of their own political leaders (including Trump) have been co-opted, the elites win.
The danger in any civil war is that BOTH sides end up being manipulated and controlled, and that the situation is maneuvered towards an outcome that only serves the interests of a select few.
Virginia may be a test bed, a trial run for a nationwide conflagration, and if it does hit a point where state officials compel a violent response from the citizenry, then it is important that liberty advocates remain vigilant and steer clear of incompetent or controlled leaders. It is also important that they remember there is a much larger agenda at play here; the Democrats may be useful idiots fueling that agenda, but most of them are oblivious to their role. Our fight is not with the Democrats, our fight is with the globalists that influence them; the same globalists that are trying to influence us.
First and foremost we have to address the propaganda, because all wars begin first in the public consciousness. The current situation in Virginia remains a battle of political rhetoric and “fluid” interpretations of the law. Here are the arguments I've seen from the political left so far on the issue of 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries:
Leftists argue that sanctuary county resolutions are “purely symbolic” and have no force of law behind them.
This is a rather naive (perhaps deliberately naive) position, as it ignores the fundamentals. The force of law is either compelled by conscience, or it is compelled by violence. The law itself is meaningless without these two factors. If groups of citizens choose not to follow a law because they find it morally reprehensible, there is nothing the state can do except try to frighten them into compliance with the threat of violence. The concept of a law by itself has no energy, and claiming that something is “right” because it is now “law” is not a valid argument.
In the case of anti-gun laws in Virginia, the VAST majority of counties in the state and the people in those counties have made it clear that they will not comply. The leftists have completely ignored this fact by simply saying “They have to comply because the law says so...” This is the type of attitude that leads to war.
Leftists argue that state laws supersede county authority and there is no legal standing for sanctuary resolutions.
The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that constitutional protections provided by the Bill of Rights supersede ALL other laws. It does not matter if attempts are being made by state governments or the federal government to degrade constitutional rights, the people are empowered to refuse and fight against ANY laws which violate constitutional rights.
For example, Democrats often bring up the history of Jim Crow Laws as a rationale for Federal intervention in the legal affairs of states. Jim Crow laws were segregation laws passed by state governments, and in many cases there was resistance on a public level to these laws. Democrats like to cite Jim Crow laws whenever conservatives argue for states rights and 10th Amendment nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. They have conveniently memory-holed the issue whenever state laws are working in favor of their agenda.
The bottom line is this: The constitution and Bill of Rights take precedence over all other laws in the US, and if Democrats are going to use legal technicality as their foundation for draconian gun control measures, then they really have no leg to stand on. If their argument is that citizens and counties have no legal right to nullify state laws no matter how immoral or unconstitutional, then what would they say if a state government brought back Jim Crow, or legalized slavery? Virginia's gun control efforts are no different.
Leftists assert that new laws in Virginia are “standard” because similar laws have been passed in other states.
This is the totalitarian tip-toe at work. Once an unconstitutional law is passed in California, New York or Illinois, this therefore means that the laws have become “standard” and are thus acceptable.
An unconstitutional law is an unconstitutional law. It does not matter how many states pass such a law and proclaim it normal or standard. The people of Virginia have announced en masse that they have no intention of following new gun control laws. The people have spoken, over 90% of counties in Virginia have passed 2nd Amendment resolutions with the support of the citizenry. Democrats gaining seats in an election does not give them the power to deny constitutional rights to Virginians.
Beyond this, the Virginia laws are nowhere near standard. Clearly, Virginia is being used as a testing ground for Red Flag laws in particular, which are the most concerning. Red Flag laws allow gun confiscation without due process based on ambiguous accusations backed often by zero evidence; it is prosecution and punishment without representation or defense. Red Flag gun laws are a means by which the state can violate your rights while circumventing due process.
(I will make note here that leftists aren't the only people that are pushing for Red Flag laws. Donald Trump is a vocal supporter of them as well)
The numerous laws Virginia's government hopes to implement set the stage for the incremental removal of all gun rights. Currently, at least four of these laws have been advanced by the Virginia Senate Judiciary committee and many more are expected to be implemented by the end of this month.
They are pushing the envelope to see how far they can move the boundary of what is “standard” when it comes to anti-gun laws. The people of Virginia know this is the agenda. It has ALWAYS been the leftist agenda (not to mention a globalist agenda) to seek out total disarmament of the population while claiming they only want "reasonable safeguards". This is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated.
Leftists argue that law enforcement authorities that refuse to enforce new gun laws risk losing their “official immunity”.
I'm not sure that “official immunity” has anything to do with the enforcement of gun laws; it is meant to protect LEOs from civil litigation while conducting normal ministerial duties. This sounds more like an a thinly veiled threat against county officials and law enforcement who refuse to comply. It is also an empty threat.
County officials cannot be compelled by the state to actively enforce unconstitutional gun control laws, nor can the state force a county to set aside funds for such an effort. In the case of county sheriffs, these are officials elected by the people of the county, and they answer to those people first, and state government second. County officials can be punished for breaking the law, but they cannot be punished for not enforcing the law to an arbitrary degree that the state sees as acceptable.
Leftists are pursuing other more aggressive avenues to enforce new gun laws.
Representatives of the state government have threatened the possible use of the national guard to force counties to comply. They have made a budget proposal for $6.5 million to form a new "sex offense and firearms investigation unit”, which they deny will be used as a goon squad to enter into sanctuary counties and enforce new gun laws by circumventing local law enforcement, much like the federal government uses the FBI or ATF to circumvent state authorities when it pleases them.
Finally, the Virginia government is also seeking at least $250,000 to be allocated to prisons, and this is directly tied to the new gun laws and the people that will be imprisoned by them.
The governor of Virginia claims that he supports grandfathering in existing guns as long as they are registered in the new state database. Of course, gun owners know from history that the first step towards total confiscation is forced registration. The mainstream media has suggested that anyone who thinks these budget changes are in preparation for arresting gun owners is a "conspiracy theorist".
They had better be right, because the government of Virginia should know that if they did compel such actions it would be a detrimental mistake.
The national guard of Virginia is made up of the citizens of Virginia, and many of these people may not comply either. If they do, or if the state establishes an enforcement arm to target individual citizens to make examples out of them, the most likely outcome is that people will defend themselves and their constitutional rights. People on both sides might be hurt in the process.
The question then arises: Are these laws worth dying for? I can say with some authority as a long time activist in the liberty movement that the majority of conservatives are willing to risk death to protect their rights. Are state authorities willing to risk death to enforce unconstitutional laws? Because that is where this situation is headed...
Leftists claim that 2nd Amendment sanctuaries are not comparable to illegal immigrant sanctuaries.
Leftists are correct, the two situations are NOT the same. Illegal immigration is not a constitutionally protected right, and gun ownership is.
I find it fascinating that not long ago leftists and statist Republicans were arguing fervently against the idea that states and municipalities could nullify federal law. During the 10th Amendment and nullification uprisings that led to such confrontations as Bundy Ranch, these people viciously attacked anyone that supported sovereignty activism. They used to claim that the federal government was the alpha and the omega; the final word. Now, suddenly, leftists have pulled a u-turn and are attempting to assert sovereignty rights for illegals in sanctuary states and cities. Again, illegals are not afforded constitutional protections, gun owners are.
One could try to make a moral argument in favor of protecting illegal immigrants from deportation, but there is no legal argument. And, I could easily present a far superior moral argument against illegal immigration than they ever could in favor of it. I would have to write a whole other article to cover this issue in depth, but it is important to point out the double standards and hypocrisy inherent in the leftist position.
Leftists argue that this is only about Virginia.
Conservatives don't see it that way. A conflict in Virginia will likely attract thousands of people from outside the state, because the view will be that the line is being drawn there. It may also spread beyond Virginia into other states with unconstitutional gun control measures.
Now, it's important for conservatives, especially those that actually live in Virginia, to understand that there will be conmen and shysters who will show up out of nowhere and try to exploit the situation to elevate their own careers or public image. They will try to make as much money as they can while shamelessly self promoting. They will pretend to help while offering substandard advice and substandard training. And if the manure hits the fan, these guys will suddenly disappear as quickly as they arrived.
There will also be people who will try to steer the conflict towards a left vs right paradigm, as I noted earlier. Sanctuary counties should maintain local leadership and local representation in these matters to avoid being manipulated. If people outside the state want to help, then they should be fine with doing this under the supervision and management of the locals.
The best possible scenario would be that the state government of Virginia realizes that it's not worth it to try to enforce unconstitutional gun laws, and that the risks are far too high to manage. They would abandon such endeavors and recognize that counties will not comply even if they try to apply leverage to them.
My suspicion is that the state will try to enforce laws quietly and incrementally at first, arresting a handful of violators and activists over the course of several months to make examples out of them while test running Red Flag laws for backdoor confiscation. They will wait for the activists to quiet down and go home.
The worst case scenario is that this is an establishment beta test for the rest of the country, and that they may WANT to start a conflict in the hopes that this will spread into a national civil war. This kind of scheme would require accelerated and violent enforcement of gun laws by Democrats in Virginia to illicit an immediate response. If this is the case, and a wider conflict is triggered, conservatives MUST NOT lose sight of the bigger picture. The globalists should be the focus of our ire; the democrats are being used. A conflict based only on political division will mean defeat for us all, and a win for the elites.
Monday, January 13, 2020
409Ks, 90% Gains, The Fed and Darth Vader's Warning
The
worship of mortals as demi-gods and faith in Golden Idols triggers a
turn in the karmic wheel as near-infinite hubris invites divine
retribution.
In case you missed it, here's a snapshot of the most recent Federal Reserve board meeting:
It's certainly a peculiar moment in history when the President chides everyone who hasn't gained 90% in their 409K (sic), seemingly unaware that only the top 5% have enough in a 409K to make a difference.
President Trump and the Federal Reserve agree: the "solution" to inequality and malaise is to boost the 409Ks of the top 5%, leaving the rest of the American workforce as glorified servants of the few who benefit from a record-setting stock market.
Note to the Prez and the Fed: goosing the stock market only increases wealth/income inequality. There's
only so many dogs owned by the top 5% the peasantry can walk, only so
many Priuses and Teslas to wash, only so many preciously over-scheduled
children to tutor, only so many $50 steak dinners to bus, only so many
bedpans of the top 5%'s parents to empty. The top 5% who benefit from
the stock market's relentless melt-up can't generate a tide that raises
all ships; all they can do is further enrich themselves on the
debt-serfdom of their servants.
As noted in The Fed Can't Reverse the Decline of Financialization and Globalization, the Fed can goose stocks to new highs and the President can cheerlead the rise of inequality, but the Fed can't conjure up wage increases the way it can conjure up $6 trillion to boost Wall Street and the banks: Federal Reserve Admits It Pumped More than $6 Trillion to Wall Street in Recent Six Week Period (via U. Doran).
Then
there's the whole triumphal tone of the Fed's self-satisfied service of
the super-wealthy and the President's boosterism taunting the bottom
95% who don't own enough stocks in their 409Ks to reverse their
deteriorating financial condition. This reflects an openly quasi-religious faith in the omnipotence of the Fed which we can chart:
The
worship of mortals as demi-gods and faith in Golden Idols triggers a
turn in the karmic wheel as near-infinite hubris invites divine
retribution. Call it the loss of the Mandate of Heaven for lack of a
better term, but those who taunt the unprivileged, worship false idols
and rig the system to benefit the few at the expense of the many are in
effect claiming to hold the Ultimate Power in the Universe.
For a suitable warning about the consequences of this unlimited hubris, let's turn to Darth Vader, in paraphrase:
Don't
be too proud of this financial terror you've constructed. The ability
to control a market is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
Put another way: Those whom the gods would destroy they first make powerful.
Yehovah's Word for the West, Spoken By Amos 792-740 b.c.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun."
This summary of the book of Amos provides information about the title, author(s), date of writing, chronology, theme, theology, outline, a brief overview, and the chapters of the Book of Amos.
Amos was from Tekoa (1:1), a small town in Judah about 6 miles south of Bethlehem and 11 miles from Jerusalem. He was not a man of the court like Isaiah, or a member of a priestly family like Jeremiah and Ezekiel. He earned his living from the flock and the sycamore-fig grove (1:1; 7:14-15). Whether he owned the flocks and groves or only worked as a hired hand is not known. His skill with words and the strikingly broad range of his general knowledge of history and the world preclude his being an ignorant peasant. Though his home was in Judah, he was sent to announce God's judgment on the northern kingdom (Israel). He probably ministered for the most part at Bethel (7:10-13; see 1Ki 12:28-30 and notes), Israel's main religious sanctuary, where the upper echelons of the northern kingdom worshiped.
The book brings his prophecies together in a carefully organized form intended to be read as a unit. It offers few, if any, clues as to the chronological order of his spoken messages -- he may have repeated them on many occasions to reach everyone who came to worship. The book is ultimately addressed to all Israel (hence the references to Judah and Jerusalem).
According to the first verse, Amos prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah over Judah (792-740 b.c.) and Jeroboam II over Israel (793-753). The main part of his ministry was probably carried out c. 760-750. Both kingdoms were enjoying great prosperity and had reached new political and military heights (cf. 2Ki 14:23 -- 15:7; 2Ch 26). It was also a time of idolatry, extravagant indulgence in luxurious living, immorality, corruption of judicial procedures and oppression of the poor. As a consequence, God would soon bring about the Assyrian captivity of the northern kingdom (722-721).
Israel at the time was politically secure and spiritually smug. About 40 years earlier, at the end of his ministry, Elisha had prophesied the resurgence of Israel's power (2Ki 13:17-19), and more recently Jonah had prophesied her restoration to a glory not known since the days of Solomon (2Ki 14:25). The nation felt sure, therefore, that she was in God's good graces. But prosperity increased Israel's religious and moral corruption. God's past punishments for unfaithfulness were forgotten, and his patience was at an end -- which he sent Amos to announce.
With Amos, the messages of the prophets began to be preserved in permanent form, being brought together in books that would accompany Israel through the coming debacle and beyond. (Since Amos was a contemporary of Hosea and Jonah, see Introductions to those books.)
The dominant theme is clearly stated in 5:24, which calls for social justice as the indispensable expression of true piety. Amos was a vigorous spokesman for God's justice and righteousness, whereas Hosea emphasized God's love, grace, mercy and forgiveness. Amos declared that God was going to judge his unfaithful, disobedient, covenant-breaking people. Despite the Lord's special choice of Israel and his kindnesses to her during the exodus and conquest and in the days of David and Solomon, his people continually failed to honor and obey him. The shrines at Bethel and other places of worship were often paganized, and Israel had a worldly view of even the ritual that the Lord himself had prescribed. They thought performance of the rites was all God required, and, with that done, they could do whatever they pleased -- an essentially pagan notion. Without commitment to God's law, they had no basis for standards of conduct. Amos condemns all who make themselves powerful or rich at the expense of others. Those who had acquired two splendid houses (3:15), expensive furniture and richly laden tables by cheating, perverting justice and crushing the poor would lose everything they had.
God's imminent judgment on Israel would not be a mere punitive blow to warn (as often before; see 4:6-11 and note), but an almost total destruction. The unthinkable was about to happen: Because they had not faithfully consecrated themselves to his lordship, God would uproot his chosen people by the hands of a pagan nation. Even so, if they would repent, there was hope that "the Lord God Almighty (would) have mercy on the remnant" (5:15; see 5:4-6,14). In fact, the Lord had a glorious future for his people, beyond the impending judgment. The house of David would again rule over Israel -- even extend its rule over many nations -- and Israel would once more be secure in the promised land, feasting on wine and fruit (9:11-15). The God of Israel, the Lord of history, would not abandon his chosen people or his chosen program of redemption.
The God for whom Amos speaks is God of more than merely Israel. He also uses one nation against another to carry out his purposes (6:14). He is the Great King who rules the whole universe (4:13; 5:8; 9:5-6). Because he is all-sovereign, the God of Israel holds the history and destiny of all peoples and of the world in his hands. Israel must know not only that he is the Lord of her future, but also that he is Lord over all, and that he has purposes and concerns that reach far beyond her borders. Israel had a unique, but not an exclusive, claim on God. She needed to remember not only his covenant commitments to her but also her covenant obligations to him. (See further the prophecy of Jonah.)
https://www.biblestudytools.com/amos/
Malachi 3:6
I am יְהֹוָה, and I do not change;
and you, children of Jacob, have not perished.
"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun."
Summary of the Book of Amos
This summary of the book of Amos provides information about the title, author(s), date of writing, chronology, theme, theology, outline, a brief overview, and the chapters of the Book of Amos.
Author
Amos was from Tekoa (1:1), a small town in Judah about 6 miles south of Bethlehem and 11 miles from Jerusalem. He was not a man of the court like Isaiah, or a member of a priestly family like Jeremiah and Ezekiel. He earned his living from the flock and the sycamore-fig grove (1:1; 7:14-15). Whether he owned the flocks and groves or only worked as a hired hand is not known. His skill with words and the strikingly broad range of his general knowledge of history and the world preclude his being an ignorant peasant. Though his home was in Judah, he was sent to announce God's judgment on the northern kingdom (Israel). He probably ministered for the most part at Bethel (7:10-13; see 1Ki 12:28-30 and notes), Israel's main religious sanctuary, where the upper echelons of the northern kingdom worshiped.
The book brings his prophecies together in a carefully organized form intended to be read as a unit. It offers few, if any, clues as to the chronological order of his spoken messages -- he may have repeated them on many occasions to reach everyone who came to worship. The book is ultimately addressed to all Israel (hence the references to Judah and Jerusalem).
Date and Historical Situation
According to the first verse, Amos prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah over Judah (792-740 b.c.) and Jeroboam II over Israel (793-753). The main part of his ministry was probably carried out c. 760-750. Both kingdoms were enjoying great prosperity and had reached new political and military heights (cf. 2Ki 14:23 -- 15:7; 2Ch 26). It was also a time of idolatry, extravagant indulgence in luxurious living, immorality, corruption of judicial procedures and oppression of the poor. As a consequence, God would soon bring about the Assyrian captivity of the northern kingdom (722-721).
Israel at the time was politically secure and spiritually smug. About 40 years earlier, at the end of his ministry, Elisha had prophesied the resurgence of Israel's power (2Ki 13:17-19), and more recently Jonah had prophesied her restoration to a glory not known since the days of Solomon (2Ki 14:25). The nation felt sure, therefore, that she was in God's good graces. But prosperity increased Israel's religious and moral corruption. God's past punishments for unfaithfulness were forgotten, and his patience was at an end -- which he sent Amos to announce.
With Amos, the messages of the prophets began to be preserved in permanent form, being brought together in books that would accompany Israel through the coming debacle and beyond. (Since Amos was a contemporary of Hosea and Jonah, see Introductions to those books.)
Theological Theme and Message
The dominant theme is clearly stated in 5:24, which calls for social justice as the indispensable expression of true piety. Amos was a vigorous spokesman for God's justice and righteousness, whereas Hosea emphasized God's love, grace, mercy and forgiveness. Amos declared that God was going to judge his unfaithful, disobedient, covenant-breaking people. Despite the Lord's special choice of Israel and his kindnesses to her during the exodus and conquest and in the days of David and Solomon, his people continually failed to honor and obey him. The shrines at Bethel and other places of worship were often paganized, and Israel had a worldly view of even the ritual that the Lord himself had prescribed. They thought performance of the rites was all God required, and, with that done, they could do whatever they pleased -- an essentially pagan notion. Without commitment to God's law, they had no basis for standards of conduct. Amos condemns all who make themselves powerful or rich at the expense of others. Those who had acquired two splendid houses (3:15), expensive furniture and richly laden tables by cheating, perverting justice and crushing the poor would lose everything they had.
God's imminent judgment on Israel would not be a mere punitive blow to warn (as often before; see 4:6-11 and note), but an almost total destruction. The unthinkable was about to happen: Because they had not faithfully consecrated themselves to his lordship, God would uproot his chosen people by the hands of a pagan nation. Even so, if they would repent, there was hope that "the Lord God Almighty (would) have mercy on the remnant" (5:15; see 5:4-6,14). In fact, the Lord had a glorious future for his people, beyond the impending judgment. The house of David would again rule over Israel -- even extend its rule over many nations -- and Israel would once more be secure in the promised land, feasting on wine and fruit (9:11-15). The God of Israel, the Lord of history, would not abandon his chosen people or his chosen program of redemption.
The God for whom Amos speaks is God of more than merely Israel. He also uses one nation against another to carry out his purposes (6:14). He is the Great King who rules the whole universe (4:13; 5:8; 9:5-6). Because he is all-sovereign, the God of Israel holds the history and destiny of all peoples and of the world in his hands. Israel must know not only that he is the Lord of her future, but also that he is Lord over all, and that he has purposes and concerns that reach far beyond her borders. Israel had a unique, but not an exclusive, claim on God. She needed to remember not only his covenant commitments to her but also her covenant obligations to him. (See further the prophecy of Jonah.)
https://www.biblestudytools.com/amos/
Malachi 3:6
I am יְהֹוָה, and I do not change;
and you, children of Jacob, have not perished.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Saturday, January 11, 2020
Friday, January 10, 2020
The Fed Can't Reverse The Decline Of Financialization And Globalization
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog
"For two generations, globalization and financialization have been the two engines of global growth and soaring assets...
"A key element in globalization is the transfer of risk from the owners of capital to the workers and public resources...
"The Federal Reserve and other central banks enabled this exploitation, but they're powerless to extend it: central banks can create nearly free credit for the powerful, but they can't conjure up new herds to be preyed upon...
See the entire article over at ZeroHedge.
Thursday, January 9, 2020
The War Pigs Are Finally Revealing Themselves - And This Is Just The Beginning...
This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Alt-Market.com.
In 2016 during the election campaign of
Donald Trump one of the primary factors of his popularity among
conservatives was that he was one of the first candidates since Ron Paul
to argue for bringing US troops home and ending American involvement in
the various elitist fabricated wars in the Middle East. From Iraq, to
Afghanistan, to Syria and Yemen and beyond, the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs at
the behest of their globalist masters had been waging war oversees
unabated for over 15 years. The time was ripe for a change and people
felt certain that if Hillary Clinton entered the White House, another
4-8 years of war were guaranteed.
There was nothing to be gained from these wars. They were only dragging the US down socially and economically, and even the idea of “getting the oil” had turned into a farce as the majority of Iraqi oil has been going to China, not the US. General estimates on the costs of the wars stand at $5 trillion US tax dollars and over 4500 American dead along with around 40,000 wounded. The only people that were benefiting from the situation were globalists and banking elites, who had been clamoring to destabilize the Middle East since the day they launched their “Project For A New American Century” (PNAC). Truly, all wars are banker wars.
The Obama Administration's attempts to lure Americans into supporting open war with the Assad regime in Syria had failed. Consistent attempts by George W. Bush and Obama to increase tensions with Iran had fizzled. Americans were showing signs of fatigue, FINALLY fed up with the lies being constructed to trick them into being complicit in the banker wars. Trump was a breath of fresh air...but of course, like all other puppets of the globalists, his promises were empty.
In my article 'Clinton vs. Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement', published before the 2016 election, I warned that Trump's rhetoric might be a grand show, and that it could be scripted by the establishment to bring conservatives back into the Republican/Neo-Con fold. At the time, leftist media outlet Bloomberg openly reveled in the idea that Trump might absorb and destroy the “Tea Party” and liberty movement and turn them into something far more manageable. The question was whether or not the liberty movement would buy into Trump completely, or remain skeptical.
Initially, I do not think the movement held onto its objectivity at all. Far too many people bought into Trump blindly and immediately based on misguided hopes and a desire to “win” against the leftists. The insane cultism of the political left didn't help matters much, either.
When Trump started saturating his cabinet with banking elites and globalists from the CFR the moment he entered office, I knew without any doubt that he was a fraud. Close associations with establishment swamp creatures was something he had consistently criticized Clinton and other politicians for during the campaign, but Trump was no better or different than Clinton; he was just an errand boy for the elites. The singular difference was that his rhetoric was designed to appeal directly to liberty minded conservatives.
This meant that it was only a matter of time before Trump broke most of his campaign promises, including his assertions that he would bring US troops home. Eventually, the mask had to come off if Trump was going to continue carrying out the agenda of his masters.
Today, the mask has indeed come off. For the past three years Trump has made announcements of an imminent pull back of troops in the Middle East, including the recent claim that troops would be leaving Syria. All of the announcements were followed by an INCREASE in US troop presence in the region. Consistent attempts have been made to foment renewed strife with Iran. The build-up to war has been obvious, but some people on the Trump train still didn't get it.
The most common argument I heard when pointing out all the inconsistencies in Trump's claims as well as his direct links to globalists was that “He hadn't started any wars, so how could he be a globalist puppet...?” My response has always been “Give it a little time, and he will.”
One of my readers noted recently that “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) actually goes both ways. Leftists double down on their hatred of Trump at every opportunity, but Trump cultists double down on their support for Trump regardless of how many promises he breaks. This has always been my biggest concern – That conservatives in the liberty movement would ultimately abandon their principles of limited government, the end to banking elites in the White House and ending illegal wars because they had invested themselves so completely in the Trump farce that they would be too embarrassed to admit they had been conned.
Another concern is that the liberty movement would be infected by an influx of people who are neo-conservative statists at their core. These people pretend to be liberty minded conservatives, but when the veil is lifted they show their true colors as the War Pigs they really are. A distinction has to be made between Bush era Neo-Con control freaks and constitutional conservatives; there are few if any similarities between the two groups, but the establishment hopes that the former will devour the latter.
I've noticed that the War Pigs are out in force this past week, beating their chests and calling for more blood. The US government has assassinated Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, retaliations against US targets have begun, and now the Iraqi government has demanded that US troops be removed from the region, to which Trump has said “no” and demanded payment instead. A new troop surge has been initiated and this WILL end in all out war. The tit-for-tat has just begun.
How do Trump cultists respond? “Kill those terrorists!”
Yes, many of the same people that applauded Trump's supposed opposition to the wars three years ago are now fanatically cheering for the beginning of perhaps the most destructive war of all. The rationalizations for this abound. Soleimani was planning attacks on US targets in Iraq, they say. And, this might be true, though no hard proof has yet been presented.
I'm reminded of the Bush era claims of Iraqi “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, the weapons that were never found and no proof was found that they ever existed. The only weapons Iraq had were the weapons the US sold to them decades ago. Any government can fabricate an excuse for assassination or war for public consumption; the Trump Administration is no different.
That said, I think the most important factor in this debate has fallen by the wayside. The bottom line is, US troops and US bases should NOT be in Iraq in the first place. Trump himself stated this time and time again. Even if Soleimani was behind the attacks and riots in Iraq, US assets cannot be attacked in the region if they are REMOVED from the region as Trump said he would do.
There is only one reason to keep US assets in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria at this time, and that is to create ongoing tensions in the area which can be used by the establishment to trigger a new war, specifically with Iran.
The War Pigs always have reasons and rationales, though. They say the Muslim world is a threat to our way of life, and I agree that their ideology is completely incompatible with Western values. That said, the solution is not sending young Americans to die overseas in wars based on lies. Again, these wars only benefit the bankers and globalists; they do not make us safer as a people. The only moral solution is to make sure the fascist elements of Muslim extremism are not imported to our shores.
The War Pigs say that we deserve payment for our “services rendered” in the region before we leave, echoing the sentiments of Donald Trump. I ask, what services? Payment for what? The invasion the Iraqi's didn't want, based on fallacies that have been publicly exposed? The US bases that should not be there in the first place? The hundreds of thousands dead from a war that had no purpose except to deliberately destabilize the region?
We will never get “payment” from the Iraqis as compensation for these mad endeavors, and the War Pigs know this. They want war. They want it to go on forever. They want to attach their egos to the event. They want to claim glory for themselves vicariously when we win, and they want to claim victimhood for themselves vicariously when our soldiers or citizens get killed. They are losers that can only be winners through the sacrifices of others.
The War Pigs defend the notion that the president should be allowed to make war unilaterally without support from congress. They say that this type of action is legal, and technically they are right. It is “legal” because the checks and balances of war were removed under the Bush and Obama Administrations. The passage of the AUMF (Authorization For Use Of Military Force) in 2001 gave the Executive Branch dictatorial powers to initiate war on a whim without oversight. Just because it is “legal” does not mean it is constitutional, or right.
In the end, the Trump bandwagon is meant to accomplish many things for the globalists; the main goal though is that it is designed to change liberty conservatives into rabid statists. It is designed to make anti-war pro-constitution activists into war mongers and supporters of big government, as long as it is big government under “our control”. But it's not under our control. Trump is NOT our guy. He is an agent of the establishment and always has been.
For now, the saber rattling is aggressive but the actions have been limited. This will not be the case for long. Some may ask why the establishment has not simply launched all out war now? Why start out small? Firstly, they need conservatives psychologically invested in the idea. This may require a false flag event or attack on American civilians. Secondly, they need to execute an extensive troop build-up, which could take a few months. Declarations of a "need for peace" are always used to stall for time while the elites position for war.
War with Iran is pointless, and frankly, unwinnable, and the elites know this. It's not just a war with Iran, it is a war with Iran, their allies, and every other nation that reacts negatively to our actions. And, these nations do not have to react militarily, they can react economically by dumping US treasuries and the dollar as world reserve.
The establishment wants the US embroiled in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. until we are so hollowed out from conflict that we collapse.
They also need a considerable distraction to hide their responsibility for the implosion of the Everything Bubble and the economic pain that will come with it. The end game for the establishment is for America to self destruct, so that it can be rebuilt into something unrecognizable and eternally monstrous. They want every vestige of our original principles to be erased, and to do that, they need us to be complicit in our own destruction. They need us to participate. Don't participate, and refuse to support new banker wars. Don't be a War Pig.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Saturday, January 4, 2020
Friday, January 3, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)