Wednesday, August 17, 2022

Should red states block federal agencies like the FBI and IRS from operating with impunity? Blue states already do it!

 From Brandon Smith of Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty Digest 17 August 2022



The concept of "sanctuary cities" has long been implemented within predominantly leftist states in America. It's not anything new. Any operations by DHS and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) within blue states to arrest and deport illegal immigrants is often met with aggressive resistance by Democrat-run city governments.

Keep in mind that foreign individuals have no right under the constitution to reside in the U.S. without first gaining citizenship. Leftists say they don't care and are happy to welcome millions of illegals into the country with open arms in direct violation of laws protecting our borders as well as the stability of our economy and society. They do this NOT because they are foolishly humanitarian; rather, they see it as a means to import a massive voting block that will give leftists whatever they want because they believe they will get citizenship in exchange.

If they didn't want millions of illegal votes, then Democrats would not be constantly attempting to block voter ID laws.


Obviously, the political left is openly hostile to federal agencies when those agencies happen to obstruct their agenda. Though it's rare these days for blue states and the feds to be at odds, it does happen. ICE and other agencies might try to find ways around sanctuary status, but there is never any question of "treason" or "insurrection." Blue state politicians don't get raided or arrested as national enemies.


I bring up this issue because many readers have asked me to comment on the events at Mar-a-Lago and the FBI search of Donald Trump's home. From my research, every president in history has been given access to classified information after they leave the White House, especially if they are planning to run for office again. One can debate the merits of this policy, but it is a policy just the same. Presidents also have sweeping authority to declassify documents and information when they feel it is justified. Meaning, if documents were found in Trump's possession, it's completely plausible that he simply declassified them before taking them.


The main leftist position is more about the nuances of how the documents are stored and if Trump followed proper procedures through NARA. While the secondary argument by leftists is basically that Trump is a criminal and should not be allowed the same access as other presidents (though impeachment failed, and he has never been criminally charged). Until the information on the raid is unsealed, we really have no idea if Trump actually had any dangerous or top-secret documents in his possession. It's all hypothetical at this point and the progressive media is running wild with the story simply because they hate Trump and are hoping against hope that this event will stop him from running for office in 2024, where Biden would be easily crushed.

My personal feeling on the issue is that people are missing the bigger picture. The Mar-a-Lago raid is much like the Jan. 6 trials. It's all a circus and a distraction. Nothing substantial will come from these actions, it's all about optics and influencing public perception. If anything, the raid on Trump's home actually makes him look MORE appealing to a large number of Americans, who have grown tired of the incompetence and chicanery of the Biden Administration. This event HELPS Trump in the long run instead of hurting him.

The only other possible scenario that makes sense here is that there will be an attempt to arrest Trump on thin charges. Such a move would be seen as purely political in nature and would enrage millions of Americans to the point of civil unrest. But maybe that's the goal...


I have never had much trust in Trump, and I was always highly critical of the fact that he loaded his cabinet with known banking elites and globalists after attacking those same people during his election campaign. This article is not meant to defend Trump or admonish him. Frankly, I don't care.


What I do care about, though, is the increasing tide of federal aggression and the use of federal agencies as a political club to intimidate or beat down opponents of the leftists and globalists. The FBI raid in Florida is one example, then there was the FBI seizure of PA congressman Scott Perry's cellphone, and the Jan. 6 investigations, in general, are purely about intimidation and not about justice.

The message of the Jan. 6 trials is this: Leftists are allowed to violently riot and burn buildings to the ground across the country. Conservatives are not allowed to do anything. If we do, then we will be rounded up for "insurrection." At least, that's what they want us to believe so that we self-censor and live in fear of ever protesting again. We are at an impasse. There is no diplomacy to be had and no agreements to be made. They want us gone, and now we want them gone because they want us gone. This is not going to change.


Another growing concern among many Americans is the sudden explosion in agent recruitment at the IRS, with an implied need for agents that are willing to execute raids and violence. The "Inflation Reduction Act" contains no measures to actually reduce inflation but does contain a climate change agenda, socialized health care measures and an extreme boost to the IRS.


The agency is slated to receive an $80 billion boost from the Inflation Reduction Act and the institution is now looking to hire 87,000 more employees. If the mission is to reduce inflation by using the IRS to steal more money from American consumers, then I guess that could work, but it would also cause recessionary carnage and even more public discontent and anger.


Obviously, not all of the 87,000 new IRS agents will be field agents. Finding that many people with training who are also willing to risk their lives for the IRS would be exceedingly difficult. Many of them will be sitting at a desk, but thousands of them will be strapped and this is what worries people. The mainstream media claims that these new agents will be targeting "rich tax dodgers" but we all know better. The IRS was used extensively under Obama to put pressure on conservative organizations and individuals that were not "rich," and there's no reason to think Biden would not do the same thing.


The IRS even had to apologize to conservative groups for their over-scrutiny as part of a legal settlement in 2017.


They've done it before and they'll do it again, but this time with a massive payout from the Biden White House and probably more leeway to bend the law. So, with federal agencies being utilized more and more as political weapons, should conservative states step in and block their operations?  Blue states do it, why not red states? This is an apples-to-apples comparison and absolutely fair. I would say that what blue states are doing with illegal immigrants is highly destructive in comparison to red states stopping alphabet agencies from using intimidation against conservatives who are legal citizens.


This question leads to a whole gamut of conflicts for sure, there will be endless cries by leftists of "treason." But who cares? We realize that there is a double standard and it's only expanding in the favor of social justice extremists that want to fundamentally disrupt and change the foundations of our country. Why should we play by their rules when they don't play by any?


Red states should enforce a moratorium on federal agency operations until the threats of political abuse are addressed. It is not possible to reach an understanding with leftists at this time because they operate through a lens of zealotry. They cannot be reasoned with because they believe that everything they are doing is righteous and anyone that stands against them is pure evil, so it is better to separate and prevent them from implementing biased policy within our state borders until the conflict is resolved.

To truth and knowledge,

BRANDON SMITH

Monday, June 6, 2022

When equality doesn't mean equal and freedom doesn't mean free

 Everyone is equal under the law. But not everyone is equal. There are hundreds of ways we are not equal. Everything from differences in hair color, ambition, physical strength, competitiveness, mental focus, hand-eye coordination, allergies, musical talent and so on.

Is that unjust?


[NO - because the way people are "equal under the law" is that, being humans with functioning brains and free-will choice and not animals, we all have the exact same right (to not be attacked first) and responsibility (to not attack thereby innocent other people first). So all is forbidden in advance unless and until very specifically agreed on, between all people at all levels of human interaction, from the individual through family to clan, tribe, and nation - and that includes even the largest groups or gangs, like "the state" and/or "the government" which is also not allowed to attack any of its real live human individual citizen component parts first. Therefore we enjoy "Innocent until proven guilty" and not the opposite, and how "Silence does NOT mean consent." Libertine "liberal" criminals, on the other hand, of course want the exact opposite, where under their brazen rule of chaos, all is allowed unless and until very specifically denied in advance, with the result that they can do whatever they want, when and where ever they want, to any and all people places and things they want to do it to, at will.]


;-)


So then, also YES, it is - if you are an elitist social engineer.


Constitutional-sounding words like "equality" and "social justice" are used to give apparent weight and legitimacy to the completely false premises being espoused. They have as much substance as the breath behind the words or smoke on the wind.


They are merely part of the elites' ploy to try to get people to equate things that are merely social constructs, or colloquial social mores, with actual law, the point of which is to have these phrases carry the weight of law and be used to keep us fighting each other.


Social engineers want diversity to become equated with law, and therefore become the de-facto law without anyone ever having voted on it. What a triumph of propaganda we are witnessing should this come to pass!


If the elites get their way, without a vote, without due process, without one person in our Republic having an official voice in the matter, "social justice" and "rights" as defined by the immoral few — for example the so-called rights elitists want are in actuality special privileges – will have the force of law due to propaganda having succeeded in convincing people that there is no difference between constitutional law and unwritten social customs the elites want to force on everyone, even those with a different set of morals.


So who are these enemies of the elites, with different customs and beliefs, and likely to find themselves on the receiving end of penalties imposed due to these non-laws?


The criminal political class has made it quite clear it is not themselves or their government functionaries. It is not the parasitic "taker" class, too distracted by bread and circus, Hollywood antics, amoral lifestyles, reality TV, and "politics," too easily swayed by slick oratory, fancy suits and promises of government largesse to recognize creeping totalitarianism enabled by the psychopath social engineers.

No, those who will be held up as enemies of the State will be Americans who believe in the rule of the law, the Constitution, and freedom. We are always the target, you and I, because we think for ourselves and act independently. The elites want to stamp us out because we refuse to be controlled, dumbed down, tread upon.


We also refuse to be homogenized, and "equalized." The elites, so intent on their versions of "justice" and "equality" want you to think they're intent on making sure no one is left behind. In reality, they are ensuring that no one gets ahead. But isn't that the goal of totalitarian regimes?


In 1776, our founding fathers declared, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."


It is necessary for us as right-thinking members of the Republic to separate ourselves from the social engineers. Otherwise, without anyone taking notice, their change agents will continue to distort key words in our language. This blunts, diminishes and distorts our thinking process to the great advantage of unseen authority.


I used to believe that the Bill of Rights was succumbing to tyranny at all levels of government. Now I believe that it is succumbing to self-imposed tyranny — imposed by the very people it is meant to protect and keep free.


This is a part of the "benevolent totalitarianism" I have been writing to you about. It is the "you asked for this" form of tyranny by those in power — uninformed consent by the masses. You begged us for gun control even though it's unconstitutional. You asked us to allow "social justice" even though it's unlawful and arbitrary.


Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter

Wednesday, May 4, 2022

The leftist war on free speech is part of a much bigger agenda

 From Brandon Smith of the Bob Livingston Personal Liberty Alerts



I think one of the most bizarre social developments of the past 10 years in the U.S. has been the slow but steady shift of the political left from supposed defenders of free speech to open aggression against it. The level of rationalization and mental gymnastics on display by leftists to justify their attacks on freedom and the First Amendment are bewildering. So much so that I begin to question if liberals and leftists ever actually had any respect for speech rights to begin with? 

Or maybe the only freedom they cared about was the freedom to watch pornography?

One can see the steady progression of this war on speech and ideas, and the end game is predictable. Is anyone really that surprised that the Biden administration is implementing a Ministry of Truth in the form of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board? Can we just accept the reality at this point that leftists are evil and their efforts feed into an agenda of authoritarianism?


Before I get into this issue, I think it's important to point out that it's becoming tiresome to hear arguments these days suggesting that meeting leftists "somewhere in the middle" is somehow the best and most desirable option. I see this attitude all over the place and I think it comes from a certain naivety about the situation we find ourselves in as a country. Moderates and "normies" are finally starting to realize how bag-lady-crazy leftists are and the pendulum is swinging back slightly, but it was conservatives that were calling out the social justice cult and their highway to hell for years.


There is no such thing as a "center" in our society anymore, either you lean conservative and you support freedom, or you lean left and support authoritarianism. There is no magical and Utopian in-between that we need to achieve to make things right. Also, no, there are no conservatives that support authoritarianism. There are fake GOP RINOS that are not conservative at all in rhetoric or in action; they do not represent conservatives in the slightest. Any Republican that goes against the basic tenets of constitutionalism, free markets, individual liberty, non-intervention in foreign entanglements and the protection of the founding principles of our country is not a conservative.


We need to be clear about where the lines are drawn because sitting on the fence is not an option. Walk in the middle of the road? Get squished like a grape.


To understand how leftists got to the point of enthusiastic hostility against free speech rights there are some psychological and ideological factors that need to be addressed. These are some of the ideals that leftists value that are disjointed or simply wrong:


Hate Speech Is Real And Must Be Censored?


First, as I have argued for many years, well before the social justice movement ever became a point of contention in the U.S., there is no such thing as "hate speech." There is speech that some people don't like and speech they are offended by. That is all.


Constitutionally there is no illegal hate speech. People are allowed to say any offensive thing they wish and believe however they wish as long as they are not slandering a person's reputation with lies or threatening them with direct bodily harm. If you are offended by criticism, that is your problem.


Leftists believe the opposite. They think that "hate speech" is illegal or should be illegal and that they should be the people that determine what hate speech is. This is a kind of magical door to power because if you can declare yourself the arbiter of hate speech you give yourself the authority to control all speech. That is to say, as a speech arbiter all you have to do is label everything you don't like as hate speech, no matter how factual, and you now dictate the course of society.

No one is capable of this kind of objectivity or benevolence. No person alive has the ability to determine what speech is acceptable without bias. Like the One Ring in The Lord of The Rings, there is no individual or group capable of wielding such power without being corrupted by it. Either there is no hate speech, or everything becomes hate speech.


Free Speech Is Negated By Property Rights?


This is in direct reference to social media websites and it's an oversimplification of the issue of free speech and large social media platforms. Here is the conundrum, or "false paradigm" if you will:


Leftists argue for private property rights, but only when it comes to vast corporate big tech platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. They like private property rights for companies that they think are on their side politically. 


They hate private property rights for everyone else. Just look at their response to Elon Musk's recent Twitter buyout; the leftists are demanding that Musk be stopped at all costs and demanding the SEC and FCC step in to disrupt the sale because they claim Musk's purchase is a "threat to democracy."


Why are Elon Musk's private property rights now less important or protected that the original shareholders of Twitter (Vangaurd, BlackRock, Morgan Stanley and a Saudi Prince)? Because Musk does not appear to represent leftist designs and interests. Leftists have no ideals or principles, they only care about control.

Beyond that irony, though, is the deeper issue of government intervention vs business rights. Is either side really trustworthy? The answer is no. Many people seem to think that government power is supposed to balance out corporate power when the truth is that governments and corporations work hand in hand; they are one in the same entity in many cases.


Twitter and other Big Tech platforms receive billions upon billions of dollars in government stimulus and tax incentives every year. Corporations as a concept are essentially a socialist creation. They enjoy limited liability and corporate personhood along with other special protections under government charter. With all these protections, incentives and stimulus measures, it is almost impossible for small and new businesses to compete with them. They represent a monopoly through cartel; they control the marketplace by colluding with each other and through support of the government itself.


A perfect example of this would be the collusion between multiple Big Tech companies to bring down Parler, a conservative-leaning competitor to Twitter. This required some of the biggest companies on the planet working in unison along with the blessing of government to disrupt the ability of a new company to offer an alternative, and all because Parler was getting too big.


In the case of a private person's home or small business, it's true that there are no free speech rights. They can kick you out and they don't have to give a reason. But when it comes to massive conglomerates that receive billions in our tax dollars in order to stay alive, no, they do not deserve private property rights. They have not made themselves into a public utility.


This is a concept that leftists just don't grasp. Consider global corporation Disney and their open intention to undermine the passage of Florida's anti-grooming bill; this represented a vocal support for the sexualization and indoctrination of children in Florida schools. Leftists cheered the announcement and claimed that without Disney, Florida's economy would be wrecked. Instead, the state turned the tables and took away incentives they had been giving to Disney for decades. 


Leftists responded by accusing Governor DeSantis of being a "fascist" and attacking free speech.


But let's break this down: Leftists happily supported Disney, a massive conglomerate, and their efforts to undermine the will of the voters in Florida. The state government stops them from undermining the voters by taking away the money and special incentives that belong to the voters. In turn, leftists claim this is a violation of Disney's rights?


No corporation, including Disney, is entitled to special incentives from government or the taxpayer. If they accept such incentives, then they must also accept that certain behaviors are unacceptable, including schemes to disrupt legal decisions within a state or country. The corporation is no longer private, it is partially public. This goes for Big Tech and social media platforms as well.

Censorship by these companies is not their right. They gave up that right when they took our money.


Disinformation Is A Threat And Censorship Is The Solution? 


Governments and major corporations talking about the threat of "disinformation" is hilarious for a number of reasons, but mainly because traditionally it is the power brokers that have been the main purveyors of disinformation for a very long time. Suddenly today they care about the spreading of lies?


Rather, I think it is obvious that such people are far more worried about the spread of facts, evidence and truth. The institution of the Disinformation Governance Board is a clear indication that the establishment and the useful idiots on the political left are becoming desperate.


They are losing their grip on the public mind, and we can see this in the results of their recent attempts to enforce medical tyranny across the country in the name of COVID. Luckily, conservatives in at least 20 red states fought against the implementation of COVID lockdowns, mandates and vaccine passports which would have annihilated our constitutional rights, perhaps forever.


If you want to know what our country would look like had conservatives not stopped the tide of tyranny, just take a look at China today. They have some of the strictest COIVD mandates in the world and yet they are locking down millions yet again due to "high infection rates" and starving their own people in the process. It's madness, and it's exactly what leftists were arguing in favor of just a few months ago. The U.S. is mostly open today, just as red states like mine have been free for almost the entirety of the pandemic, and what has changed? Half the country is still unvaccinated and is there mass death in the streets? Nope. 


Nothing has changed in terms of COVID. The mandates made no difference whatsoever, other than to disrupt the economy and reduce people's freedoms.

Not long ago, pointing out this fact was considered "disinformation" that needed to be silenced in order to "save lives." In other words, what the government and corporate oligarchs call "disinformation" today is eventually called reality tomorrow.


It is not their job to protect the public from information, whether real or fake. It is not their job to filter or censor data or ideas. They are not qualified to do this. No one is. Leftists operate from a collectivist mentality, and this makes them believe that society is a singular entity that needs to be managed and manipulated to achieve a specific outcome. They support information control because facts and ideas outside of their narrative could possibly damage their narrative, and if the narrative is damaged, then they think society as a whole is damaged.


That said, if your narrative is so fragile that it does not hold up to scrutiny or alternative viewpoints, then it must not be worth much of a damn, is it? If you have to force people or manipulate people into believing the way you do, then your ideology must be fundamentally flawed. The truth speaks volumes for itself and eventually wins without force. Only lies need to be forced into the collective consciousness.


Government lies in particular are the biggest threat to humanity, and their assertion that they should have the power to dictate what constitutes a "lie" is the biggest clown show of all time. Leftists love lies and use them constantly because they understand that lies are a form of sorcery. If told by the right people with the illusion of authority, lies can garner unlimited power from thin air. Power can only be derived by tricking other people into giving up control over themselves. Power is a trick in which the public is convinced to submit and become enslaved for the "greater good," even though freedom is the only greater good.


The collectivists live vicariously through government power. Leftists gain ecstasy through tyranny because the dominance of the hive mind is their dominance. They actually believe that if the system has ultimate power, they in turn have ultimate power. It is a mental disease that destroys everything in its path, and it is one that is actively encouraged by globalists and oligarchs. Leftist cultists serve their agenda, whether those leftists know it or not.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith

(And what's MY take on all this, you ask)? Simple!

Morality to honest people is sequential: "Who Started it?" But morality to hypocrites is only: "I'm Never Wrong - Fuck Your "FACTS!" And since they can't prove that to be right, all they've got left is offended subjective emotions and hurt feelings, and to call you names and insist you're always wrong (they don't try to prove them selves objectively right, because they know they can't - so they just stay on the victim-blaming offensive all the time, shallowly accusing their accusers of their own crimes)! Which explains censorship, too. They concentrate on banning the tactics ("ban all assault weapons!") FOR OTHERS, to divert attention away from their own strategy ("always attack first")! This includes judges and all "Authorities!"

Attacking first, with whatever weapon, is the crime; using that same weapon, no matter what is is, to defend one's self and/or innocent others, is moral. 

But all "Authorities!" as professional hypocrites, will have none of that sequence-based 'logic' stuff!

And since they're in charge, there are no consequences for them to continue to always double-down and never have to learn to change their minds, either. They're never wrong while you are always guilty until never proven innocent, peons!


;-)

Wednesday, April 20, 2022

Woke Twitter elitists are too stupid to realize Elon Musk is saving the platform

 From Brandon Smith of the Bob Livingston Personal Liberty Alerts



Twitter is a bit of an enigma. The social media company has gone from a relatively innocuous space for people to mostly market online businesses and for politicians and celebrities to engage with their followers or detractors, to a vicious battleground overrun with leftist zealots hellbent on using the platform as a weapon to silence dissent and destroy the lives of people that disagree with them. If I was to describe what Twitter really stands for today, I would say it is an attempt to build a global hive mind; a place where everyone is coerced into conformity with establishment ideals through peer pressure and mob aggression.

In other words, Twitter is the antithesis of a free-speech society. A beta test for the future of authoritarianism where you think you are allowed to speak your mind but only the "correct" opinions are allowed to pass.


How this happened is hard to say. Some theorize that leftist cultists scrambled like rats from the sinking ship of Tumblr and found their way over to Twitter to take up residency. I would argue that maybe Twitter was always intended to become what it now is. Just take a look at the monster's gallery of its largest shareholders.


There's Vanguard and Blackrock, which together represent a globalist vampire squid of epic proportions. Their tentacles are wrapped around almost every aspect of the economy including media, big pharma (including Pfizer), weapons manufacturers, huge swaths of the U.S. housing market, etc. If these two mega conglomerates were to somehow be wiped off the face of the Earth tomorrow, the world would be a much better place. For now, they own almost everything.


Then there is Morgan Stanley, another "too big to fail" international banking firm that for some reason has a major stake in the realm of "tweets." Whenever globalist companies like these pursue major investments in a communications platform there is generally something nefarious afoot. And it should be noted that almost all the media companies they own push an agenda that leans hard left and is authoritarian in nature. We witnessed this undeniable dynamic in the past two years as media companies attacked anyone that stood against the illegal covid mandates.


Why do major globalist institutions have so much interest in Twitter?  It's not because Twitter is a moneymaker. In 2020 the company suffered a net income loss of over $1.14 billion. In 2021 there was an income loss of $221 million. Twitter still claims it earns a profit, but this is primarily derived from stock buybacks and state and federal government subsidies, meaning, without overnight loans from the Federal Reserve and tax breaks from government Twitter simply would not exist.


Twitter is carrying a debt load of around $6.75 billion in total liabilities according to The Wall Street Journal, with a dismal stock performance until the pandemic which led to trillions in stimulus dollars flooding into equities markets. Now that the covid checks have dried up, the company's stock has spiraled down yet again. The only thing propping it up today is the sudden prospect of an Elon Musk buyout.


Twitter was bleeding users and was dealing with a declining membership base leading up to 2019 when the company decided it would fix the problem by not reporting traditional user numbers anymore. They shifted to a new metric that they claimed was designed to discount the removal of "spam and bot accounts." One has to wonder how much of Twitter's actual user base is made of real people rather than fake accounts?  Even with the new metrics, evidence suggests they have continued to lose users and revenues since 2019, largely due to the hostile political witch hunt environment that Twitter has developed in the past few years.


The U.S. government has also been heavily invested in Twitter over the years, throwing millions into various projects the company has undertaken including many overseas. This makes sense because Twitter regularly shares user data with government agencies, often while claiming they don't. Surveillance requests are kept secret and any release of information on such requests are blocked by U.S. courts.


Overall, Twitter is a cesspool of political and corporate corruption. A sock puppet of massive globalist shareholders and a data clearinghouse for conglomerates and governments alike. This is why I have never had an account with them, and likely never will.


It boggles my mind how all of these facts can be right out in the open, yet the one thing that sends leftists on Twitter into a rage is the notion that Elon Musk might buy up enough stock in the company to determine its future course. Here are some key facts that I think the Twitter elites need to consider:


1)  Twitter has been on a downward plunge in terms of user base and revenues for years now. The fact that the company's board has decided to assert a leftist political agenda and enforce unbalanced censorship rules is killing the company even further. In a few years, Twitter will not exist. Or, if it does, it will be a shell of its former self much like Myspace or Tumblr. The platform you people think you control is dying. Without fair public discourse and equally enforced guidelines Twitter serves no purpose other than to act as an echo chamber for leftist fanatics, and who wants to be a party to that?


2)  The Twitter cult and their "blue checkmark" gatekeepers are losing their minds over the prospect of a "billionaire" taking over Twitter when in reality the platform has been controlled by the world’s richest and most invasive shareholders for a long time. If you think Vanguard or BlackRock are better stewards than Elon Musk then I suggest you do a little more research on the history of these corporations.


3)  Elon Musk's interest in Twitter has stirred up excitement in a platform that was otherwise destined for the dumpster. I might even suggest that Musk's activities are prolonging Twitter's life span by drawing in investments that never would have been there otherwise. The blue checkmarks should be thanking him instead of attacking him.


4)  What is the primary complaint that Twitter elitists have when it comes to Musk?  That he might bring in more fair and balanced rules which would prevent political censorship. In other words, they are angry because he might allow true free speech within the boundaries of legality for conservatives as well as leftists. This is unacceptable to them. In their minds, free speech is only reserved for those with "correct thinking," and they believe they get to dictate what "correct thinking" is. It takes a special kind of evil to believe that their side is the only side of an issue that deserves to be heard.


In terms of Elon Musk, I'm reserving judgment for now. Tesla and SpaceX receive billions in government subsidies and tax incentives, far more than Twitter does. I question the validity of any company that relies on government handouts in order to survive.


Musk also is an attendee of the World Government Summit in Dubai, where globalists from various nations meet to talk about the agenda for global centralization. Musk's discussion was specifically on how he thinks the future of humanity is to "merge with machines," much like having your cellphone attached to your brain. This sounds like a dystopian nightmare to me; governments already track and monitor cellphone activity, do you really want them to do the same with your brain?


Setting all that aside, Musk's surprising pursuit of Twitter is interesting no matter which way it goes. He could take control and shut the whole thing down, which is what I would suggest given the platform is a cancer on society and rife with government and corporate surveillance. Scattering the blue check cult to the four winds would be one of the best gifts Musk could give the world right now. They can always complain about everything on other platforms, just not with so much concentrated corporate power at their disposal.


Musk could sell his nearly 10 percent share in the company and trigger a massive plunge in the stock price. This might even precipitate a faster end to the platform. Then again, he may continue to buy up shares and find a way around Twitter's "poison pill" initiative. In fact, in the back of my conspiracy brain, I wonder if Musk is actually saving Twitter rather than changing it or destroying it?


The company was entering the doldrums; its life expectancy was waning quickly. The influence of the Twitter mob has been decreasing and their ability to harm others is disappearing. Big tech companies are like sharks. They must keep moving forward in order to grow and survive. Twitter's momentum has been dead for some time. Maybe it is better to let them rot in their own filth rather than try to resurrect and revitalize a corpse?


Regardless of Musk's true intentions, something needs to change dramatically when it comes to Big Tech and social media in the west. These companies live on our tax dollars and government incentives and yet they get to enjoy the protections of limited liability and the auspices of "private businesses." They are publicly funded in many respects, but they claim the right to censor whoever they wish for any reason they wish. Any business that tries to directly compete with them is crushed, either by collusion between multiple corporations or collusion with governments. This is the epitome of monopoly and the complete opposite of free markets.


If Musk can throw a monkey wrench into the existing system then I hope he's successful; the majority of the public is on his side if that's the case. There is also the possibility that he is helping Twitter to survive. Even support from Vanguard, Blackrock and the seventh circle of hell has not been able to keep Twitter from going down the tubes, but the branding and personality power of Musk could keep the company alive.


My point is, if the leftists want to keep their favorite platform they will need Musk to do it. And beyond that, conservatives and moderates should also not put too much faith in any billionaire to accomplish a sea-change in social media. We are already winning by simply not playing the game. If Musk brings down or upends Twitter, great. If not, it's no loss. Just let them continue to crumble.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith

Monday, April 18, 2022

War in Ukraine and beyond — because the Globalists can never get enough

 From Bob Livingston, 18 April 2022



The Council on Foreign Relations would have you believe that they and their puppet world "leaders" feel something terrible is afoot in Ukraine — and that "Russia" is the bad guy — because there is a war going on. They claim it must stop, and offer supposed solutions to the crisis on its website and in press reports.

Don't be fooled. These globalists love war.


What they do not love is that you might remember who is behind it all by recalling a bit of recent history. The U.S. State Department and the CIA orchestrated the ouster of a legitimately elected government in Ukraine at the behest of the International Monetary Fund, and the U.S. then looted Ukraine's gold reserves and installed a puppet regime, leaving the region in chaos and the U.S. and Russia on the verge of war.


Elected Ukrainian pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted after he rejected the International Monetary Fund's demands to raise taxes and devalue the currency. So the U.S. and the EU installed central banker and hand puppet Arseniy "Yats" Yatsenyuk. A Forbes article described Yats as "... the kind of technocrat you want if you want austerity, with the veneer of professionalism. He's the type of guy who can hobnob with the European elite... unelected and willing to do the IMFs bidding."


In the wee hours of the morning, the U.S. took possession of Ukraine's $1.8 billion (estimated value) gold reserves. That's partial payback for the $5 billion the U.S. invested in dragging Ukraine toward the EU.


The looting continued as Vice President Joe Biden's son took a position with Ukraine's largest private gas producer. Yet it's a "conspiracy" to think that now-president Joe Biden was in any way guilty of any improper dealings in Ukraine while he was vice president.


You are not supposed to wonder about Ukrainian investigators catching representatives of the Burisma Oil Company, a company where Hunter Biden sat on the board of directors, "paying a $6 million bribe to the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Burea (NABU) to get the NABU to shut down the investigation into political graft and corruption by the Ukrainian government that benefitted Burisma," according to published reports.


You are supposed to believe that many Western leaders and major bodies that give financial support to Ukraine also wanted the prosecutor in the Burisma case dismissed because they believed he was not "active enough in tackling corruption."


You are not supposed to remember that Democrats impeached then-sitting president Donald Trump because they claimed he "withheld military aid to Ukraine in pressuring the newly elected Volodymyr Zelensky government to investigate Hunter Biden's recent role as a Burisma board member."


You are not supposed to remember that Biden himself bragged about withholding Ukraine aid to the very Council on Foreign Relations I just mentioned, back in 2019.


You are supposed to gloss over the fact that in 2017, pool reporters were summoned at 11:20 a.m. for what they assumed would be a photo op of Trump and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office. What they found was Trump seated beside the fossilized old war criminal, former NeverTrumper, long-time Council on Foreign Relations denizen and neocon war-making kingpin, Henry Kissinger.


From the report:

 POTUS, wearing a dark suit and red striped tie, said he met with Kissinger to talk "about Russia and various other matters."

"We're talking about Syria and I think that we're going to do very well with respect to Syria and things are happening that are really, really, really positive," Trump added. "We're going to stop the killing and the death."


Kissinger knows a thing or three about "killing and death." But not much, it seems, about how to stop it, and he did not in this case, either... as if that were ever the goal. Quite the opposite, I hope you now suspect.


Previous perturbations


The U.S. has been meddling in Ukraine for quite some time, and the powder keg almost blew in 2014, as Paul Craig Roberts wrote then, "I doubt that the Ukraine crisis precipitated by Washington's overthrow of the democratic government is over. Washington has won the propaganda war everywhere outside of Russia and Ukraine itself. Within Ukraine, people are aware that the coup has made them worse off. Crimea has already separated from the U.S. puppet government in Kiev and rejoined Russia. Other parts of Russian Ukraine could follow."


No one believes that Western Ukraine wants anything to do with Russia and that Putin is lying, and yet Ron Paul pointed out, again, during the original Ukraine unrest in 2014, "The current conflict stems from a divide between western Ukraine, which seeks a closer association with the European Union; and the eastern part of the country, which has closer historic ties to Russia.


"The usual interventionists in the U.S. have long meddled in the internal affairs of Ukraine. In 2003 it was U.S. government money that helped finance the Orange Revolution, as U.S.-funded NGOs favoring one political group over the other were able to change the regime. These same people have not given up on Ukraine. They keep pushing their own agenda for Ukraine behind the scenes, even as they ridicule anyone who claims U.S. involvement.


"A recent leaked telephone conversation between two senior government officials made it clear that not only was the U.S. involved in the Ukrainian unrest, the U.S. was actually seeking to determine who should make up the next Ukrainian government!"


The Russians amassed their forces on the Ukraine border and the Ukrainians called Putting a "fascist" for his actions in Crimea.


Does any of this sound familiar to you? It should. Which leads one to wonder why the members of the CFR are surprised that it has come to war? They are not, no matter what revisionist propaganda they write on their website.


My colleague Brandon Smith, if you recall, wrote: "In Ukraine, we find the globalists creating tensions between the West and the East. Russia's most vital naval base sits in Crimea, an autonomous state tethered to the Ukrainian mainland. Currently, Russia has flooded Crimea with troops in response to the regime change in Ukraine. The new Ukrainian government (backed by NATO) has called this an "invasion" and an act of war, while Western warmongers like McCain and Lindsay Graham spread the propaganda meme that Russia made such a move only because Putin believes the Obama Administration to be 'weak.' Clearly, the idea here is to engineer either high tensions or war between Russia and the United States. Syria failed to produce the desired outcome, so Ukraine was tapped instead."


Created conflict


Ukraine has been "tapped" as a pawn many times. The Terror-Famine struck Ukraine in 1932-33 when as many as 10 million starved. It should come as little surprise that Joseph Stalin was the architect of that tragedy.


Stalin unleashed his secret police (NKVD, which became the KGB, which became the FSB, from whence Vladimir Putin came) targeting capitalists and squeezing greater food production from the suffering peasants. In the 1930s, when quotas could not be met in the face of drought, the NKVD ruthlessly robbed Ukraine of its wheat and packed the grain back to Russia.


Seemingly any time there is unrest or trouble in Russia, Ukraine pays the price, just as it did during the massive heatwave, drought, and wheat crisis back in 2010. It is no coincidence that Crimea became a flashpoint as Russians faced starvation.


It's becoming increasingly obvious that the Ukraine situation has always been an orchestrated crisis. It's directed history orchestrated by the globalists. Ukrainians will likely end up like Iraqis and Libyans, destitute and living in a lawless society, with anyone filling the void who will foment more war for profit.

Putin and Biden are merely pieces on the globalist chessboard. Empires and wars throughout history have been built and fomented upon myths and deception.

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter®

Thursday, April 14, 2022

Is Separation and a New, More Perfect Union, Inevitable?

 From Brandon Smith and Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty Alerts Newsletter Feb 7, 2022:

Separation or purge? Sharing a society with the political left is impossible

If you really think about it, of all the social drivers in history the concept of freedom is the most powerful and fascinating. There are many observable objective truths in the world and it's always important to recognize them, but the idea of freedom is rarer because it is a universal subjective truth. Meaning, it exists inherently in the majority of individuals. Most of us share this experience but there is no microscope or telescope in existence that can observe that experience. We just have to trust it, or perhaps, have faith.


We can only see the aftereffects of the human experience of freedom in the great upheavals that occur when our societies become too rigid, too controlled and too authoritarian. Some will argue that tyrants have no concept of freedom, and this debunks the notion that it's an inherent psychological quality, but this is a misconception. Many tyrants love freedom, but only for themselves. Like any obsessive compulsive, when the average tyrant sees free movement within the rest of society all he sees is chaos that needs to be micro-managed. He is so mentally unhinged by the existence of independent activity that he is compelled to crush it and impose his brand of "order."


If you want to understand the thinking process of the political left today, this is where you need to start. They believe only certain special people deserve to have freedom, and they are of course part of that group. The rest of us can't be trusted with freedom because we "think the wrong way," and so we need to be corralled and fenced in.


This is not to say that some structure within society is wrong, it can be a good thing, but not when it is imposed by an elitist minority of psychopathic people. There will never be any justice within such a system, no fairness and no true progress. Authoritarianism is the opposite of progress; it is the antithesis, and yet these people call themselves "progressives."


Freedom requires boldness and courage because it demands personal responsibility. When you are free to make your own decisions, you are also free to fail, and only you can be blamed for your own failures. This is a terrifying notion for most leftists and collectivists because they believe that they are owed a positive outcome regardless of their actions or merit. They believe it is their "right" to be taken care of by others if they are incapable of taking care of themselves, but this is not equality, this is "equity." This is stealing wealth and opportunity from more worthy people in order to artificially inflate others that put in little or no effort.


Meritocracy is the most equal system in existence because it is freedom based; equality of opportunity is the epitome of fairness, equity of outcome is the epitome of injustice.


Leftists hyperfocus on race, skin color and sexual identity for this very reason. They are desperately searching for a way to circumvent the obstacles of freedom and merit. If everything in society is based on race, then personal accomplishment and responsibility are no longer relevant. In the mind of the leftist, if certain people are inherently oppressed and others are inherently oppressive, then equality of opportunity is not enough, and equity of outcome must be enforced. Making everything about victim group status thereby erases freedom, and meritocracy cannot function. All a person needs to do is say "I am oppressed; therefore I am entitled," and if they meet the leftist criteria then they are handed a livelihood or success simply because they exist.


I saw a commercial on YouTube yesterday for yet another social justice documentary about "white people" and our supposed reign of dominance over the world and I could not help but think this entire narrative is nothing more than a cowardly attempt to deflect responsibility. Yes, it's also an attempt to divide and conquer western nations but how many people are actually watching these race hyped movies and TV shows un-ironically?  According to the stats and reviews, there aren't very many.


Nearly every claim made in these productions is based on previously debunked social justice misrepresentations of history from books like White Fragility and movements like the 1619 Project. If you really want to get an accurate representation of U.S. history in particular and the limited role slavery played in terms of modern social outcomes, then I suggest reading the works of Thomas Sowell, a black American economist and historian with no bias in his analysis.


Slavery is a mere footnote in our past, not an all-encompassing determinant of our present and future as leftists like to argue. There is no legal slavery in America today, and there is no one alive today in America who has experienced race-based slavery or that has been affected by it. Slavery and racism were far more pervasive in nations of brown and black people in history. In fact, some of these countries still engage in various forms of slavery today. White people are not the problem, people who disrespect the benefits of freedom are the problem regardless of their skin color.


What we need to understand is that race and oppression propaganda are not really rooted in race and oppression. They appeal to a certain subset of our population because it offers them a way to rationalize their lack of merit and their fears of freedom and consequence. If you can blame white people for all your problems and have this be believed, then the temptation to fail is increased because there are no consequences. Why work hard to make something of yourself if you can do nothing and be rewarded for it?


By extension, the racism blame game is alluring to many in society because it can be used as a weapon to harm political enemies. When leftists complain about the evils of "white people" what they are really talking about are the "evils" of conservatives and others that do not conform to the leftist ideology. They rarely come right out and say it, but one day the documentaries will switch from Dear White People to Dear Conservatives. The fight has never been about race, it's always been about ideals and principles and eliminating the ideals leftists do not like. This is why they are consistently hostile to anyone conservative, even more so if that person is black.


The leftist agenda is all about diminishing freedom and societal respect for freedom by whatever means necessary. Everything is about management, everything is about centralization, everything is about control. Conservatives and many moderates stand in direct opposition to this.


The most common and idiotic argument I hear among newbies in the liberty movement is when they try to explain away leftist actions by bringing up the "false left/right paradigm." These people don't understand what this actually means. The left/right paradigm exists at the top of the social and political pyramid; top political and corporate leaders pretend to be in one party or the other while in reality they are all working together and implementing the same policies. At the bottom of the pyramid among regular people, there is no false left/right paradigm. There is a very real left/right division.


This is undeniable now in the face of the COVID and vaccine mandates. For the longest time, I have heard people claim that when the push for authoritarianism in the U.S. arrived many conservatives would simply go along with it. Yet, today numerous conservative red states are fighting the mandates tooth and nail while leftist blue states are being suffocated by them. In fact, red states have acted as beacons of rebellion for the world. Without them, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would have dropped Biden's federal vax mandates. The threat of war is tangible if such mandates are ever instituted, and the Supreme Court knows this.

I have had people ask me in the past why there haven't been any major actions on the part of conservatives in the U.S. against the mandates and I have to break it to them that there are no mandates in conservative places and there haven't been for at least 18 months. None. Zero. Zip. We don't need to protest because we stopped the mandates before they could take hold.


As I have said from the very beginning of the pandemic response, if even a handful of places can remain free from COVID controls they will inspire people around the world and act as proof that the mandates are pointless. Today, as America continues to beat back the COVID agenda there are mass protests in Canada and the UK has cut all COVID restrictions. Freedom spreads like wildfire once the flames are sparked.


Leftists hate this. COVID, like the fantasy of "institutional racism," is a tempting vehicle to forward their agenda. If you can convince the public that they are a threat to themselves and each other, then it is a small matter to convince them that government needs to step in and protect society from itself and from notions of freedom that might put society at risk. Without COVID as a foil, the political left has nothing, and so they continue to perpetuate the lie that the virus is an imminent threat to the majority of people when the average Infection Fatality Rate is a tiny 0.27 percent.


The real question here is when a group of people hate freedom this much how is it possible to coexist with them? The answer is we can't.


Anyone who defends merit and liberty will always be a target of those that despise merit and liberty. They will never stop. They will forever be looking for ways to undermine both. If COVID mandates and race-based propaganda don't work then they will search for another tool to do the job. If one can say anything "good" about leftists, it's that they do not give up even when they are clearly outmatched and beaten. The problem is that this dedication to their cause is not based on love or passion, but in zealotry. They are jihadists, and nothing, not logic, not facts, not reason nor moral principle will convince them of the error of their ways.


So, what is the solution? One could suggest that we make it easy for them to leave. After all, if they hate America as much as they say they do then why are they still living here? Probably because most other places in the world are abysmal in comparison. But if we keep them around, they will drag the country down to the same level. It's a conundrum. Beyond that, what country would want them? Social justice is seen as a cancer in many countries and an injection of leftist migrants would be a disaster for them economically and socially, even in nations that claim to support leftist models.


Most leftists would also refuse to take the opportunity to leave because they believe they should decide the path of America's future. As much as they hate this country, they see themselves as its saviors.


Then there is the option of internal separation, which I see as preferable. This is already happening in many forms as conservatives and moderates from blue states relocate by the millions to red states. In my home state of Montana, there has been an influx of migrants from blue states and every single new person I have talked to is a conservative/prepper whose family lived in a blue state for generations, and they finally got fed up. The vast majority of people moving are conservative-minded and they are congregating in the red states.


Why not carry this process forward to its natural conclusion? Red states break from blue states and red counties break from blue state control and we live our lives the way we see fit. Let the leftists continue with their draconian economic and political models and see how well that goes for them. I guarantee they will be in financial ruins within a decade (the list of most indebted places in the country is dominated by blue states) and they will be begging to return to a union with red states (except for the zealots, which would lose influence as they continue to fail).

But this will not happen peacefully because, again, leftists cannot tolerate free activity. Their OCD will not allow them to be content with living in a collectivist state of their own; all states must be collectivist before they are satisfied. People are property to them; property of the collective, and people who are property cannot be allowed to make decisions without oversight.


Unfortunately, the only path this leaves is one of violence. Leftists will have to be forced out of positions of power and influence and removed from our culture like a cancerous tumor is cut from the body to save the body. I don't think this should be the obvious choice. I don't want it to be. What I am saying is, leftists and their partners in government and the corporate world will force the issue because they cannot help it; like the story of the scorpion and the frog, it's in their nature to destroy.


They will continue to push and steal and threaten and abuse until they get the inevitable response of a punch in the teeth. Then, they will play the victim like they always do. This crying and gaslighting will have to be ignored. In the end, these people cannot be tolerated in a free culture and their means of harming and enslaving others must be removed, one way or another.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith