Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Formerly Secretive Globalist Traitors Now Openly Brag About It All

From Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty Alerts

Who are the globalists and what do they want?

I get the question often, though one would think it's obvious. Who are these "globalists" we refer to so much in the liberty movement? Sometimes the request comes from honest people who only want to learn more. Sometimes it comes from disinformation agents attempting to mire discussion on a particular issue in a swamp of conjecture. The answer to the question can be simple and complex at the same time. In order to understand who the globalists are, we first have to understand what they want.

We talk a lot about the "globalists" because frankly, their agendas have become more open than ever in the past 10 years. Believe it or not there was a time not long ago when the idea of the existence of "globalists" was considered "conspiracy theory." There was a time when organizations like the Bilderberg Group did not officially exist and the mainstream media rarely reported on them. There was a time when the agenda for one world economy and a one world government was highly secretive and mentioned only in whispers in the mainstream. And anyone who tried to expose this information to the public was called a "tinfoil hat wearing nutcase."

Today, the mainstream media write puff-pieces about the Bilderberg Group and even joke about their secrecy. When members of Donald Trump's cabinet, Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner, attended Bilderberg in 2019, the mainstream media were wallpapered with the news.

When the World Government Summit meets each year in Dubai, attended by many of the same people that attend Bilderberg, as well as shady mainstream icons and gatekeepers like Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson, they don't hide their discussions or their goals, they post them on YouTube.

Remember when talking about the U.S. dollar being dethroned and replaced with a new one world currency system and a cashless society controlled by the IMF was treated as bizarre theory? Now it's openly called for by numerous leaders in the financial industry and in economic governance. The claim that these things are "conspiracy theory" no longer holds up anymore. In reality, the people who made such accusations a few years ago now look like idiots as the establishment floods the media with information and propaganda promoting everything the liberty movement has been warning about.

The argument on whether or not a globalist agenda "exists" is over. The liberty movement and the alternative media won that debate, and through our efforts we have even forced the establishment into admitting the existence of some of their plans for a completely centralized global system managed by them. Now, the argument has changed. Now, the argument is over whether or not the globalist agenda is a good thing or a bad thing.

First, I would point out the sheer level of deception and disinformation used by the globalists over the past several decades to maneuver the public toward accepting a one world economy and eventually one world governance. If you have to lie consistently to people about your ideology in order to get them to support it, then there must be something very wrong with your ideology.

Second, the establishment may be going public with their plans for globalization, but they aren't being honest about the consequences for the average person. And there are many misconceptions out there, even in the liberty movement, about what exactly these people want. So, we need to construct a list of globalist desires vs globalist lies in order to define who we are dealing with. These are the beliefs and arguments of your run-of-the-mill globalist:


A globalist believes everything must be centralized, from finance to money to social access to production to government. They argue that centralization makes the system "more fair" for everyone, but in reality they desire a system in which they have total control over every aspect of life.

Globalists, more than anything, want to dominate and micro-manage every detail of civilization and socially engineer humanity in the image they prefer.

One world currency system and cashless society

As an extension of centralization, globalists want a single currency system for the world. Not only this, but they want it digitized and easy to track. Meaning, a cashless society in which every act of trade by every person can be watched and scrutinized. If trade is no longer private, preparation for rebellion becomes rather difficult. A one world currency and cashless system would be the bedrock of one world governance. You cannot have one without the other.

One world government

Globalists want to erase all national borders and sovereignty and create a single elite bureaucracy, a one world empire in which they are the "philosopher kings" as described in Plato's Republic. This system would be highly inbred, though they may continue to give the masses the illusion of public participation and "democracy" for a time. Ultimately, the globalists desire a faceless and unaccountable round table government, a seat of power which acts as an institution with limited liability, much like a corporation, and run in the same sociopathic manner without real public oversight. In the globalist world, there will be no redress of grievances.

Sustainability as religion

Globalists often use the word "sustainability" in their white papers and agendas, from Agenda 21 to Agenda 2030. Environmentalism is the facade they employ to guilt the population into supporting global governance, among other things. As I noted in my recent article 'Why Is The Elitist Establishment So Obsessed With Meat', fake environmentalism and fraudulent global warming "science" is being exploited by globalists to demand control over everything from how much electricity you can use in your home, to how many children you can have, to how much our society is allowed to manufacture or produce, to what you are allowed to eat.

So-called carbon pollution, perhaps the biggest scam in history, is a key component of the globalist agenda. As the globalist organization The Club Of Rome, a sub-institution attached to the United Nations, stated in their book 'The First Global Revolution':

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

In other words, by presenting human beings as a species as the great threat, the globalists hope to convince humanity to sublimate itself before the mother earth goddess and beg to be kept in line. And as the self-designated "guardians" of the Earth, the elites become the high priests of the new religion of sustainability. They and they alone would determine who is a loyal servant and who is a heretic. Carbon pollution becomes the new "original sin"; everyone is a sinner against the Earth, for everyone breathes and uses resources, and we must all do our part to appease the Earth by sacrificing as much as possible, even ourselves.

Population control

Globalists come from an ideological background which worships eugenics — the belief that genetics must be controlled and regulated, and those people they deem to be undesirables must be sterilized or exterminated.

The modern eugenics movement was launched by the Rockefeller Foundation in the early 1900s in America, and was treated as a legitimate scientific endeavor for decades. Eugenics was taught in schools and even celebrated at the World's Fair. States like California that adopted eugenics legislation forcefully sterilized tens of thousands of people and denied thousands of marriage certificates based on genetics. The system was transferred to Germany in the 1930s were it gained world renowned for its inherent brutality.

This ideology holds that 4 percent or less of the population is genetically worthy of leadership, and the elites conveniently represent part of that genetic purity.

After WWII the public developed a distaste for the idea of eugenics and population control, but under the guise of environmentalism the agenda is making a comeback, as population reduction in the name of "saving the Earth" is in the mainstream media once again.

Narcissistic sociopathy

It is interesting that the globalists used to present the 4 percent leadership argument in their eugenics publications, because 4 percent of the population is also consistent with the number of people who have inherent narcissistic sociopathy, either in latent or full-blown form. Coincidence?

The behavior of the globalists is consistent with the common diagnosis of full-blown narcopaths, a condition which is believed to be inborn and incurable. Narcopaths (pyschopaths) are devoid of empathy and are often self-obsessed. They suffer from delusions of grandeur and see themselves as "gods" among men. They believe other lowly people are tools to be used for their pleasure or to further their ascendance to godhood. Narcopaths feel no compassion toward those they harm or murder, yet crave attention and adoration from the same people they see as inferior. More than anything, they seek the power to micro-manage the lives of everyone around them and to feed off those people like a parasite feeds off a host victim.


This is a highly complicated issue which requires its own essay to examine in full. I believe I did this effectively in my article 'Luciferianis: A Secular Look At A Destructive Globalist Belief System.' Needless to say, this agenda is not one that globalists are willing to admit to openly very often, but I have outlined extensive evidence that luciferianism is indeed the underlying globalist cult religion. It is essentially an ideology which promotes the worship of the self and the attainment of godhood by any means necessary — which fits perfectly with globalism and globalist behavior.

It is also the only ideological institution adopted by the U.N., through the U.N.'s relationship with Lucis Trust, also originally called Lucifer Publishing Company. Lucis Trust still has a private library within the U.N. building today.

So, now that we know the various agendas and identifiers of the globalists, we can now ask "Who are the globalists?" The answer is — anyone who promotes the above agendas, related arguments, or any corporate or political leader who works directly with them.

To make a list of names is simple; merely study the membership rosters of globalists organizations like the Bilderberg Group, the Council On Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Tavistock Institute, the IMF, the BIS, World Bank, the U.N., etc. You will find a broad range of people from every nation and every ethnicity all sharing one goal — a world in which the future for every other person is dictated by them for all time; a world in which freedom is a memory and individual choice is a commodity only they have the right to enjoy.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith                                                                                                                           


From here:

Elghawaby: Ottawa is working to address racism – and must do more

On International Human Rights Day, let's acknowledge what has been accomplished in this city so to make it more inclusive. Then let's tackle what we still must do.
Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly has promised to work on police attitudes toward racialized people. JEAN LEVAC / POSTMEDIA NEWS

Today is International Human Rights Day, an opportunity to acknowledge what has been accomplished so far towards making our communities more inclusive. It’s also a chance to look ahead.
At the top of Ottawa’s list of achievements is the recent commitment by City Hall to create an anti-racism secretariat. Proposed by Rideau-Rockliffe Coun. Rawlson King, Ottawa’s first black municipal representative, the secretariat would focus on addressing the lack of diversity in our municipal workforce. Currently, visible minorities represent only 9.5 per cent of middle and senior managers at the City of Ottawa, despite making up 20 per cent of the population.
The new office would also examine how various communities are able to access city services and examine potential barriers.
Among the initiatives it could explore is a youth fellowship program that provides recent graduates from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds an opportunity to work at city hall. In Toronto, the Muslim Youth Fellowship has helped dozens of young leaders develop valuable skills and pursue civic careers.
At the top of Ottawa’s list of achievements is the recent commitment by City Hall to create an anti-racism secretariat, proposed by Rideau-Rockliffe Coun. Rawlson King.
Then there’s the pledge made a few weeks ago by Ottawa’s first black police chief, Peter Sloly. He promised to do more to make sure his officers aren’t discriminating against residents. Like all of us, he’s seen the dismal numbers: recent analysis shows that Middle Eastern and black drivers were more likely to be stopped by police than other drivers in this city. “We want to get to zero instances of racism and discrimination in policing, in any aspect of public life,” said the Jamaican-born Sloly.
There are also concerns around how the force addresses hate crimes in this city, particularly when it emerged that Ottawa’s hate crimes unit had been quietly disbanded, even as incidents continued to climb. Community advocates are still waiting for the details on how the force plans to tackle hate and whether plans will include anti-bias training for all personnel and annual reporting on what’s going on in our neighbourhoods.
Nevertheless, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that some of the most impactful steps to address racism in our city were prompted or led by people of colour. This is why representation is important.
Those who do not face racism themselves must make space for racialized leaders and community members to lead the way towards collective action.
Coun. Rawlson King has moved to set up an anti-racism secretariat at City Hall. WAYNE CUDDINGTON / JPG
As Robin diAngelo, the author of White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism, wrote earlier this year, “We can attempt to understand the racial realities of people of colour through authentic interaction rather than through the media or through unequal relationships. We can insist that racism be discussed in our workplaces and a professed commitment to racial equity be demonstrated by actual outcomes. This takes courage, and niceness without strategic and intentional anti-racist action is not courageous.”
It is the kind of courage that led the University of Ottawa to hold a forum on anti-Black racism this past November to hear from students. This was part of the university’s response to two cases in which black students were singled out for identification by campus security officers between June and September.
“The trauma coming back to school on my first day of classes for my special topics course and being locked out of the classroom — and seeing none other than the guard that put me in handcuffsand made me sit there for hours be the one to come unlock the door — was more than horrible,” Jamal Koulmiye-Boyce told the forum. An investigation determined that Koulmiye-Boyce’s treatment amounted to racial discrimination.
With more and more people rightfully demanding change, the political will to respond is growing.
Led by the United Way, a group of community organizations, municipal leaders and representatives from key city institutions have now formed United For All. It’s a coalition that aims to strategize ways to make our communities safer for everyone. It was launched last month, and time will tell if it will make meaningful change in the lives of Ottawa residents.
Those of us committed to this work are hopeful.
Amira Elghawaby is a human rights advocate and a member of the United for All campaign. See her TedxOttawa Talk here. Twitter: @AmiraElghawab

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

On The Tyrant Lincoln's War Of Northern Aggression

We still have Lincoln to blame for the mess we're in today!

The U.S. Constitution was a document designed to place restraints on the federal government the Founders were creating, not a document to restrain the people or the states. This is an important distinction

The Constitution would not have been ratified if not for the promise of a bill of rights to further check the federal government. That's because most of the Founders — particularly the Anti-Federalists — feared the Constitution wasn't strong enough to prevent the federal government from stealing power from the states.

It was commonly understood prior to 1861 that the states reserved the right to secede. There had been talk of secession by the New England states many times. They called it "disunion."

New England Federalists in the early 1800s feared that Virginia was gaining too much power and would act against the interests of New England states and in the interests of Southern ones. Many of them also opposed the War of 1812.  After Thomas Jefferson's election, Federalist Stephen Higgenson claimed the federal government "had fallen into the hands of infidel, anti-commercial, anti-New England Southerners" who would "govern and depress New England."

The complaints of New England Federalists essentially mirrored those later made by Southerners advocating for secession in the 1860s. And in fact, in the 1830s and 1840s, abolitionists, chief among them William Lloyd Garrison, called for "disunion" over the slavery issue. A New England Anti-Slavery Convention was held and attendees voted in favor of secession by a margin of 250-24.
So we see that secession was not a wholly Southern construct. Even Abraham Lincoln, as a representative, recognized the states had the right to secede — he only changed his mind after became president.

To "save the Union" — which Lincoln stated at the outset was his goal in prosecuting the war, whether he had to preserve slavery or abolish it to do so – Lincoln trampled on the rule of law when  he sent federal troops to occupy the seceding states and force them back into the union. The natural result of Lincoln's actions is the imperial presidency we have today.

On Nov. 19, 1863, at the dedication of the military cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Lincoln spoke these words:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
It's curious that he took the phrase "that all men are created equal" from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, but stopped there rather than continue with the words, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and institute a new Government."

The Civil War was not fought to create "a new birth of freedom," as Lincoln suggested. Nor did it create a "government of the people, by the people and for the people." It did quite the opposite.
As H.L. Menken later wrote about the Gettysburg Address in "Smart Set" in 1920:

[I]t is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it.  Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — "that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

The states that left the Union to join the Confederacy did so in the true sense of the Jeffersonian principle of self-government, as stated in the Declaration. Lincoln's invasion of the Confederate States stood that idea on its head.

The threat of secession was a check on federal power that both New England and Southern states invoked between the ratification of the Constitution and beginning of the Civil War. It was generally understood that, because the Constitution was silent on the issue, secession was a viable alternative to checking federal power.

In fact, when during the Constitutional Convention a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state, James Madison proclaimed: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." The proposal was removed.

Lincoln's claims in his address "that government of the people, by the people, for the people " would somehow "perish from the earth" if the Union lost the war was hogwash. Representative democracy would have continued in the Union and in the Confederacy regardless of the outcome. The  Union and the Confederacy could have existed side by side as trading partners an allies, just as Mexico and Canada do today.

And remember, neither side entered the war over the issue of slavery. Lincoln's stated purpose for invading the Confederacy was "preserving the Union."

Finally, the final outcome of the Civil War did not usher in "a new birth of freedom." It did quite the opposite. It consolidated federal power, neutered the 9th and 10th Amendments and gave birth to the fascist system and the imperial presidency under which we now suffer. There is no check on federal power, the states are essentially meaningless and the political class is running roughshod over the Constitution and our traditional institutions.

Do Republicans really want to think of themselves as belonging to the party of Lincoln?

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

"The Real Lincoln," by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

"The Civil War," by Bruce Catton

Sunday, December 1, 2019


  • Recklessly careless heedless and feckless libertine "liberal" criminal politicians always buy votes by bribing people, using borrowed money, under false claims of there being "YAY FREE STUFF!," as their fraudulent pretense to justify the theft: of both our elections, and also of everyone involved who accepts that "YAY FREE STUFF!" in STEAD of earning it's, own economic futures.

    And that's almost child abuse, as they target the always larger incoming voter demographic of young people who have never yet earned anything, are in debt, and so remain insecure and also used to depending on receiving free stuff from their parents.

    Meanwhile, idiot but honest conservatives target only the smaller demographic of parents who did earn stuff, with their inane promises of smaller government (which translates as less free stuff for the kids) lower taxes, and more money in your pocket.

    So apart from only appealing to the smallest demographic group, it also simultaneously alienates that largest voting group.

    Which is why we even now, without understanding why, still call them "the evil party" and "the stupid party," respectively!

    There - now you never have to pay some alleged "expert authority's" obscene salary just to take a "political science" course!

    PS: While liberals may always seem to be the majority, they are really always only a criminal minority, BUT they can usually entice the next, ever-larger generation of young college-aged low-information voters to support their "YAY FREE STUFF!" lying promises, because that's all the kids are used to anyway (free stuff from their parents; and they're insecure by nature and timid about getting jobs) and they don't realize that if and when they (like their dumbass parents did) vote for "YAY FREE STUFF!" in stead of learning to work to fend for them selves, they not only cheat them SELVES of a chance to become self reliant, but they ALSO spend their OWN future inheritance as the liberals rack up endless debt on Chinese credit cards in their names, too - so they are being tempted by leftist devils to sacrifice their own abilities to profit now, in exchange for also stealing and depleting their own future inheritance now!

Saturday, November 30, 2019


From Peter Townsend, author of  ‘Nothing to do with Islam – Investigating the West’s Most Dangerous Blind Spot

The Knives are Out! (And Have Been for a Very Long Time)

One weekend, two knife attacks in major European cities - London and The Hague. Obviously this is no coincidence. I suspect, however, that few people will realize what deep historical roots such random stabbing frenzies have in Islam’s past. 
The Kharijites were a hugely influential early (7th century onwards) group of discontents within the ‘House of Islam’ who were convinced that the Muslim community was straying from the purity that existed during the time of Muhammad. They firmly believed that what the world really needed was a state wherein, as their catch-cry incessantly repeated, there would be ‘No judgement but Allah’s!’ 
And how exactly was this lofty goal to be achieved? Here is how a historian of the movement, Muhamad bin Ahmad al-Malati, described their modus operandi: “...they would ‘go out with their swords into the markets while people would stand around not realising what was happening; they would shout “no judgement except God!” and plunge their blades into whomever they could reach, and go on killing until they themselves were killed’. Sound familiar?
ISIS, which can in many ways be seen as the modern-day descendants of the Kharijites, was not slow to learn the lesson. Here is, for example, an exhortation from the April 2016 issue of their online magazine, Dabiq: “One must either make the journey to dar-al-Islam, joining the ranks of the mujahidin or wage jihad by himself with the resources available to him (knives, guns, explosives etc.) to kill the crusaders and other disbelievers and apostates...”
Over the next few days we will probably be ‘treated’ to multiple theories to try and explain the sudden surge in random knife attacks. Some of these will, no doubt, work very hard to get Islam off the hook by blaming alienation, psychological stress or western foreign policy. As you read these, remember that there is indeed nothing new under the sun! We are faced with an ancient ideology, that uses tried and tested methods. We must get to grips with this fact and target all our attention to defeating its truth-claims if we want the knives to go back in their sheaths.

The elephant in the room: A donkey-elephant Frankenstein

From here:

Exclusive: Craige McMillan predicts explosion of anger once true corruption is revealed

(Personally, I think this is a tad premature bit of wishful thinking, but we all need a little hope, so) ...!

Everybody knows the anger is there, in the middle of the room. The question is, what happens when it explodes?
Right now, the Trump haters and the Trump lovers are both angry, but they are angry about different things.
The Trump haters (let's just call them the left) are angry because the ship of state has begun a hard right turn. All of their patient work, accomplished over past generations, is crashing down around them as the ship abruptly changes course and enters rough seas.
All of this has happened simply because the left lost the 2016 presidential election – something they believed at the time to be impossible! Trump and his army of deplorables were supposed to be humiliated at the polls, ground into the dust by the media, routed from the government and removed from the face of the earth. The left's agenda was finally to rise from the ashes of the judicially crippled Constitution.
Not that Hillary had enough functional brain cells remaining to accomplish any of this had she been elected. It was Obama's holdovers who were already in place and could be counted upon to implement a new socialist paradise; in the language of the software world, America 2.0. Big media, entertainment, tech and education would be pleased to help erase any memory of the original America.
he right was used to losing, because even when they won an election the left's agenda still continued forward – just at a slower pace than when leftists won. Compromise always leaned left. Federal judges were the left's bulwark against policy corrections to the right, all the way up to a compromised Supreme Court (Scalia and Roberts).
Administrative law ensured that much leftist administratively devised nonsense was never even subject to review by the courts. Between the courts and the embedded bureaucracy, which we now call the Deep State, leftist schemes almost always lived long and prospered. The nation itself under leftist tyranny, not so much. We were a hollow shell of our founders' dreams for ordinary Americans.
Why is the anger so vitriolic now? First, big media is fanning the flames. It's the only kind of story that generates mouse clicks anymore. Social media gives both sides an echo chamber; the more trivial a news item is, the more attention it receives and the bigger the boost from social media.
Second, corruption is being taken seriously by William Barr and the Department of Justice, and President Trump. Hunter Biden's Ukraine gas and oil payments are only a gnat on the butthole of payola the elites have built up for themselves over previous administrations, Democrat and Republican. Remember, Washington, D.C., is one of the richest ZIP codes in the nation. Their business is government. Guess what their "product" is? Guess who pays for their product?
Corruption is the electoral wild card in the 2020 election. The political right is mildly aware of corruption, but clueless as to its scale. The political left is clueless, period. Everything from American foreign aid to "climate change" horror stories (when hasn't the climate changed?) has been a massive payola scheme the elites manufactured to enrich themselves and their friends, while forcing our nation to pay for it all.
The leftist politicians have manipulated their clueless voters for decades. "Do it for the children" while we run the illegal drugs and human trafficking networks over the porous southern border. Why else their demands for open borders? A woman's right to choose (to abort her baby) has never been anything other than the abortion industry selling its product, aborted babies, to medical researchers … and worse. Why do you think abortion up to the moment of birth is now on the abortionists' wish list?
When the facts come out and leftists recognize the magnitude of deception used against them over past several generations to support leftist "causes" the anger is going to explode! Put yourself in their place: everything they have believed in and worked for over generations will be shown to be a lie.
The elephant in the room is really a donkey-elephant Frankenstein monster. Trump correctly identified the big picture and is dismantling the elites' cash flow and networks. They are trying anything and everything to stop him. I don't think it can any longer be stopped. What is coming next will put this week's turkey talk over the dinner table into perspective.

MOST Mass-Shooters Are NON-WHITE

Vice profiles mass shooters, leaves out the two biggest factors

Vice News, citing a study funded by the federal government and conducted by The Violence Project, claims that "Nearly all mass shooters since 1966 had 4 things in common." Curiously — or maybe not — the study leaves off the two most common traits.

The study funded by the Department of Justice found that in instances in which four or more people were shot in a public place, the killer most often had experience with childhood trauma; a personal crisis or specific grievance; a "script" or examples that validate their feelings or provide a roadmap; and the one trait that is common in all shootings, access to a gun. (Well, duh!)

"Data is data," Jillian Peterson, a psychologist at Hamline University and co-author of the study told Vice. "Data isn't political. Our hope is that it pushes these conversations further."

Well, data isn't political, that is true. But people are, and people can slant the data to fit their narrative. And that's what apparently happened here.

The study claimed to have found five profiles of mass shooters. It lists them as:
  • K-12 shooters: White males, typically students or former students of the school, with a history of trauma. Most are suicidal, plan their crime extensively, and make others aware of their plans at some point before the shooting. They use multiple guns that they typically steal from a family member.
  • College and university shooters: Non-white males who are current students of the university, are suicidal, and have a history of violence and childhood trauma. They typically use legally obtained handguns and leave behind some sort of manifesto.
  • Workplace shooters: Fortysomething males without a specific racial profile. Most are employees of their targeted location, often a blue-collar job site, and have some grievance against the workplace. They use legally purchased handguns and assault rifles.
  • Place of worship shooters: White males in their 40s, typically motivated by hate or domestic violence that spills out into public. Their crimes typically involve little planning.
  • Shooters at a commercial location (such as a store or restaurant): White men in their 30s with a violent history and criminal record. They typically have no connection to the targeted location and use a single, legally obtained firearm. About a third show evidence of a "thought disorder," a term for a mental health condition, like schizophrenia, that results in disorganized thinking, paranoia, or delusions.

Notably absent is a category for gang violence. Blacks (14.6 percent) and Hispanics (17.6 percent) make up only 32 percent of the U.S. population but account for the overwhelming majority of homicides — including mass shooting incidents. According to FBI crime statistics from 2018, blacks and Hispanics together killed 7,894 people. That's almost twice the number killed by whites even though whites make up about 62 percent of the population.

One look at the faces of 2019 mass shooters shows that the overwhelming number are black or Hispanic.

But even if you want to buy into the fake news Vice (and The Violence Project) are peddling — that the vast majority of mass shooters are white — the study still failed to list the most common denominator in the type of shootings it focused on. That is the use of prescribed psychotropic drugs. The website has a collection of more than 6,000 stories that have appeared in the media in which psychotropic drugs are a factor.

As usual, Vice is fake news.

It was a bad week for the Communist News Network (CNN)

CNN, known for its garbage reporting and Trump Derangement Syndrome, had a particularly bad week last week, even by its own standards. Now it, and the leftwing Daily Beast, are about to be on the receiving end of a defamation suit.

After spending two weeks proclaiming there were "bombshells" in the impeachment testimony that turned out to be little more than the fizzle of wet firecrackers, both media organs peddled a story last week allegedly from the attorney of indicted Ukrainian businessman Lev Parnas, that Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, had gone to Vienna to meet former Ukrainian Prosecutor Victor Shokin to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden.

Nunes denies the story and announced he was going to sue CNN and the Daily Beast, which repeated the story.

A spokesman for Mr. Nunes released an official statement to The Washington Times:
"These demonstrably false and scandalous stories published by the Daily Beast and CNN are the perfect example of defamation and reckless disregard for the truth. Some political operative offered these fake stories to at least five different media outlets before finding someone irresponsible enough to publish them. I look forward to prosecuting these cases, including the media outlets as well as the sources of their fake stories, to the fullest extent of the law. I intend to hold the Daily Beast and CNN accountable for their actions. They will find themselves in court soon after Thanksgiving."
CNN's story bears a striking resemblance to a previous phony story peddled by CNN and the rest of MSM regarding secret visits to foreign countries by supporters President Trump. The media claimed for months that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen — who now wears prison stripes for campaign finance violations and lying to Congress — went to Prague to meet with shady Kremlin-linked figures in a conspiracy to get Russia's help in the 2016 election. McClatchy News even claimed that it had evidence that Cohen's phone "pinged" a tower in Prague. The story was fake news.
Nunes is already suing the McClatchy newspaper chain for defamation.

Also, we need to remind everyone — as Nunes reminded in his opening statements — that the pencil-necked Rep. Adam Schiff, who is leading the impeachment charade for the Democrats, actually spoke on the telephone with two Ukrainians who claimed to have nude pictures of the president, and he sought to make arrangements to have the FBI meet with the Ukrainians to get them. It turns out Schiff-for-brains was actually talking on the phone to a couple of Ukrainian pranksters.

Business as usual at Bloomberg News

New York's former Nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg has opened his multi-billion-dollar checkbook and is seeking to buy the Democrat nomination for president in a late bid to "save" the party from itself.

Bloomberg owns the vast Bloomberg News empire, and his entry into the race has created what might appear to be a sketchy situation for Bloomberg reporters and reporterettes. How are they going to cover the race in a manner that is fair to all parties?

No worries. Bloomberg the company announced it would continue its ongong policy not to cover Bloomberg the man, even though he is now Bloomberg the candidate. Nor would Bloomberg the company cover any of Bloomberg the candidate's opponents in the Democrat field. Bloomberg the company will, however, continue to cover Trump.

In other words it's business as usual for Bloomberg the company. It'll continue working as opposition research for the Democrat Party.

The fake news strategy

One of the most common tactics of the legacy media these days is to publish a story based on hearsay or inuendo, give it a click-baity headline and let it stew on social media for a while. The story gets lots of traction as it scurries across the internet and other outlets pick it up and run with it.
After a short time, the original publishers will pull the story down, sometimes issue a retraction and, more rarely, an apology for the fake news.

But by then the story has done its damage. Most readers don't read beyond the headline. Some read a paragraph or two. Minds are made up and the issue is settled. Hardly anyone knows the story has been pulled, and few, if any, see the retraction, if one is issued. The media have set their narrative.
Some worry that they can no longer tell which media organs are publishing fake news and which aren't. How can you tell?

With a short attention span you can't. You have to spend time reading and verifying. One thing is for sure, if CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times and The Washington Post publish it, it's likely propaganda if not outright fake news. Just look back over the last three-plus years at their reporting on Trump-Russia collusion and now the Ukraine hoax and see how much they've gotten wrong.

If they've lied once, they'll lie again. Their strategy is to get a knee-jerk reaction out of you, get you riled up and then move you on to the next phony outrage. It's about ratings, keeping the status quo and keeping you steeped in fake news.

The Slimes is at it again

Here's more fake news from The New York Times. As the Trump impeachment farce has dragged the Democrats into Neverland, the establishment media are working overtime to separate Ukraine from the 2016 election meddling narrative in order to tie Ukraine corruption around Trump's neck.
The official MSM narrative being peddled now by The Slimes and rest of the legacy propaganda media is that Russia engaged in a campaign to frame Ukraine for its own meddling. Thus, the meddling is all Russia and Ukraine corruption is all Trump.

But in 2016, according to The Washington Examiner, The Slimes itself reported that "Ukraine's ‘newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau,' which worked in conjunction with America's FBI, was in possession of a mysterious, handwritten diary that showed (Trump's one-time campaign manager Paul) Manafort was receiving millions of dollars in payments from one of the country's pro-Russian politicians. ‘Investigators assert,' the Times reported, ‘that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials."

In 2017 Politico reported that "Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers."

According to the report, "A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

"The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails," Politico reported.

Now they want you to believe that it was only the Russians who meddled. And for the record, there is still no direct evidence that the Russia meddled in the campaign, even though that has become conventional wisdom. The so-called "intelligence report" issued in 2016 that Hillary Clinton claimed was endorsed by "17 U.S. intelligence agencies" actually found no conclusive evidence. It claimed that a Russian spend of a couple hundred thousand dollars for ads and fake stories on Facebook, some Russian Twitter bots and some Trump-supporting figures appearing on RT was Russian meddling. And even lying James Comey, the fired and disgraced former FBI director, admitted the FBI never was allowed to examine the Democrat National Committee's computer server for evidence of Russian hacking. Instead, the bureau relied on the word of a Ukrainian-linked company named CrowdStrike that handled the DNC's computer security.

--Jay Baker