Thursday, October 17, 2019

Reminder: Media framed Russia to frame Trump


From here:

Exclusive: Jack Cashill notes how Dems turned against Moscow after years of cooperation




As late as 2015, no one would have predicted that within a year Russia would emerge as a monstrously subversive country hellbent on throwing the 2016 election to Donald Trump.

No one would have predicted this scenario because it defied common sense. Russia had a proven pawn in Obama and a friend in Hillary. It did not need Donald Trump.

The campaign to sell the Trump-Putin collusion scenario could not have worked had not the media shoveled tons of information down a Grand Canyon-sized memory hole. There was much to forget.

Among the memories to be disposed of was the White House's courtship of Russia starting immediately after the January 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama.

Speaking at a February 2009 security conference in Munich, Vice President Joe Biden told the audience, "It is time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia."

A month later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with the Russian foreign minister in Geneva and presented him with a red plastic "reset" button.


Two years after proposing the reset button, Biden made a revealing speech at Moscow State University. There he listed the many new areas of cooperation between Russia and the United States and cited with pride the fruits of that relationship.

During his speech Biden boasted of visiting a high-tech hub on the outskirts of Moscow called "Skolkovo." Biden openly encouraged American venture capitalists to invest there, promising that Skolkovo held the potential to become Russia's Silicon Valley.

Even apolitical observers were troubled by this happy exchange of capital and information.

EUCOM, the American military's leading intelligence think tank in Europe, called American involvement in Skolkovo "an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage – with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently."

Always on the prowl for a quick buck, Bill Clinton secured State's permission to meet with Skolkovo honcho Vekselberg. Clinton happened to be in Russia at the time to give his notorious $500,000 speech, paid for by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.

On that same trip Clinton met with senior Rosatom official Arkady Dvorovich. The media scarcely noticed or cared.

Rosatom controlled all things nuclear in Russia, including the arsenal. At the time, Rosatom was seeking the State Department's permission to buy Uranium One, a Canadian company with vast U.S. uranium reserves.

Even the New York Times noticed this fandango. In April 2015, too late to stop the transaction, the Times reported how the Russians took control of Uranium One in three distinct transactions from 2009 to 2013.

During this time, said the Times, "a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation."

For those who want to know more, Peter Schweizer does a great job documenting the transactions executed by Hillary's State Department in his books "Secret Empires" and "Clinton Cash."

Obama was hardly blameless. "She works for me," he proudly said of Hillary during the 2012 town hall debate with Romney. "I'm the president, and I'm always responsible."

During that 2012 campaign, Obama beamed about the happy state of U.S.-Russia affairs. In March 2012, Obama met with outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Seoul, Korea.

A live microphone picked up a private conversation between the two. "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space," said Obama, the "him" being incoming president Putin.

Obama continued, "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." Replied Medvedev, "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

Obama showed his Russia-friendly chops during his final debate with Mitt Romney in 2012. Earlier in that year, Romney had called out Obama for his not-so-secret overture to Putin.

"This is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe," said Romney. "They fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed."

During the debate, Obama answered with a rehearsed comeback: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years." The media laughed off the Russian threat along with Obama.

Of note, Vladimir Putin served as prime minister during Obama's first term and was elected president eight months before Obama blew off Romney's concerns.

Obama had a friendly relationship with Russia during those first four years and expected to get even friendlier, especially with his new "flexibility."

Of course, Putin read Obama's flexibility for the weakness it was. Russia promptly annexed Crimea, refused to accept international inspection of its nuclear sites and gave fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden a home.

For all that, Obama continued to laugh off Russian potential. In July 2015, tensions between the White House and the Kremlin eased considerably when Obama called Putin, thanking him for his much needed help securing the Iran nuclear deal.

Obama had reason to be grateful. No foreign leader had more pull with the mullahs than Putin. "We would have not achieved this agreement had it not been for Russia's willingness to stick with us and the other P5-Plus members in insisting on a strong deal," Obama told the Times.

After the Iran deal no particular Russian provocation made the administration turn against Russia. Hell, Russia had been meddling in American politics since the Sacco and Vanzetti case in the 1920s, and Obama published his first article in 1983 in support of the KGB-inspired anti-nuke mania.

The event that dimmed the White House enthusiasm for Russia was Donald Trump's emergence on the national scene. To frame Trump the White House had to frame Russia too.

No doubt, Putin provided the framers ample ammunition, but Putin had been in power either as president or prime minister since the presidency of his buddy Bill Clinton. "He kept his word on all the deals we made," said Clinton in 2013.

Putin had not changed. Neither had Obama and his inner circle. They had been spying on the media, punishing whistleblowers, harassing honest reporters, even imprisoning politically inconvenient people for the past seven years.

They had the experience and the media support to execute this one last epic, Soviet-style, character assassination and silent coup.

Or so they thought.

;-)

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Mein Kampf Mit Der Alt-Rechten Wiederbelebung Der Neonazis

aka: "My Struggle With The Alt-Right Neo-Nazi Resurgence:"


Re: "Why Radical INDIVIDUALISM in a TRIBALIZING Society Wont Work" by Black Pigeon Speaks:  https://youtu.be/lrVyXdwft8E Regarding "white nationalists" (since white "supremacy" is a scientific given: Jews and even their Arab cousins are classified by geneticists as "Caucasians" whether they like it or not)! - By all scales of reference, Caucasians are more intelligent (have better speed of thought and memory) than others. But simply being more intelligent doesn't make one any smarter or wiser, and often it's a distinct impairment to wisdom, because it can enable one to do stupid things faster and more accurately, too!

THE WHITE CURSE

Jews suffer from the same White Curse as the rest of us Whites do! Let's define terms: Intelligence is speed of thought and memory. Smarts or wisdom is how one uses that intelligence (hint: honesty is the best policy, and deliberately self-inflicted paranoia leads to all other ultimately stupid "mental illnesses"). The White Curse is that increased intelligence leads to a certain type of stupidity denied to the less intelligent breeds: the one and only real drawback of White intelligence is that the ability to see so far into the future leads some of the more weak-minded ones ("liberals") to see all the potential problems as inevitable, and so they become paranoid masochists who hypocritically pretend to instantly compromise with - to go along (with their criminal lies, mostly to the effect that there are no criminals or crimes, but only equally helpless fellow victims) to get along (with the scary lying criminals) - and tempt them to Submit to - and actually cause, and/or induce others to cause - those very same problems which cause those pains they fear the most! That way, they can pretend to 'control' and cancel the additional pains caused by fearing them! Notice how all the destructive self-hating "liberals" are whites/Jews! No other breeds on earth act that way!

So I think the real cause of the resurgence in worldwide anti-White crime advocacy and anti-Semitism in recent years is pretty obvious – LIBERAL COWARDICE. See, the big, bad, scary and swarthy muslims blame the Jews for everything (it’s right in their Qur’an). Muslims outnumber Jews, and often SEEM to outnumber others (especially bedwetting crybaby liberals) SO of course the liberals will turn on the small numbers of harmless, mostly pacifist Jews in their midst, if they think they can appease the scary muslims by sacrificing the Jews to them in habitual ritual human-sacrificial offerings, as they seem to do every day in public in the leftist-dominated enemedia and university campuses. It all fits with the liberal criminals' inherent masochism as well, where they always try to pretend to "control" their fears BY causing the very same worst-case-scenario problems and mistakes which cause the pains they fear the most! Beyond that, I think conservatives and libertarians who fall into this same trap are affected by a fear of the other races being promoted all the time (and, honestly, by the fact that liberal Jews, at least some of whom do openly endorse Israel's own openly ethno-state status, nevertheless seem to be against the West being for whites as their own natural homeland. Globalist cries for "More Diversity!" and "Multi-Culturalism!" seem to be aimed only at whites); we never hear about how "We need more whites, blacks and Dravidians in Asia, because it's too full of "racist" exclusionary Asians!" Nor (ditto for Africa) "We need more whites Dravidians and Asians in Africa, because it's too full of "racist" exclusionary blacks!" So, noticing these very real patterns, they look back in recent history to the only real, almost successful but apparently powerful figure of a racist white nationalist, and see only ... Adolf Hitler. Then, exactly as blacks have been seen to do (also successfully) they whine and complain and blame the mentally superior Jews for their own, implicitly mentally inferior failings! 

"The Jews seem to be in charge, ergo everything that ever went wrong, is their fault!" is no different from blacks' historic claims of same regarding whites in general. It's only a pathetic, fearful projection of their own lazy failings onto others. And, while it is true that total-control wanting criminal gangster slavers of all stripes ("leftists;" "communists;" "socialists;" "fascists;" "nazis;" and "muslims") are trying to use mob-rule and group-might-made-right "democracy" to get the majority to Submit to group idolatry over any and all real live individual human rights, the way to stop them isn't to fight fire with more fire (by joining a neo-Nazi party whites-only club to protect our selves from the reckless and criminally negligent libertine "liberal" criminals' own racist identity politics gangs) but to remind everyone - of all races - that they are individuals who should have only the exact same equal human rights and responsibilities as everyone else. Either we enforce one law for all individual human citizens, or remain enmeshed in group-might-made-rights "Oppression Olympics" chaos forever. And we must teach our children that rights can only come with concomitant, corollary reciprocal responsibilities - give up one and lose the other!

And, Jews are inherently racist, having declared them selves God's Chosen People (those from their 12 tribes, at least) have always considered them selves to be mentally and spiritually superior to the other nations (the Hebrew word for 'nations' is "goyim") BUT, when they got expelled and disperced from their ancestral homeland by the Romans in the 'diaspora,' had to pretend to go along to get along with those whose lands they were forced to ask permission to live in - so they invented and adopted from their most infamous rebel son, the universalist creed that all humans are equal, and thus promoted open borders and "tolerance of diversity" and "equality" at least in public, while remaining separate exclusivist supremacists at home. That's how and why they were behind Communism, too. But the other peoples who were gracious enough to host them sooner or later became aware of their double standards, and evicted them again and agin, 109 times so far. Because when someone insists you have to be more tolerant of diversity, it implies you are inherently intolerant bigot - which, coming from such dedicated hypocrites, can only be a form of "projection." And nobody likes to be slandered all the time, except for maybe Christians, and whose great idea was that, too? And even now that the Jews have finally reclaimed their ancestral homeland, and while they demand their right to their "ethno-state" for the protection of their own race, they still also hypocritically continue to embrace that same universalist creed of open borders and tolerance for diversity in everyone else, as they find it a useful tool to destroy those they assert had evicted them - in other words, all the non-Jews in the world. This attitude was always very similar to islamic mindset, from even before they got evicted, although back then their preferred tactic to fulfill their global conquest and slavery strategy was peaceful usury, not violence.
But if they can trick their enemies into destroying their own houses from within, by tricking violently intolerant uniform-wearing fascists into doing their work for them, under the guise of being diversely tolerantly anti-fascists, then they will.  

The only real problem with "Jews in general," is that they are all so tribal, so clannish, that they will support each other (or at least never oppose one another in public) for being responsible for the worst atrocities - i.e: when the Rothschild banksters support both/all sides in every conflict, indiscriminately, because that way, in the end, the losers end up still owing them and the winners, the winners still owe them, and then they both have to take out even more loans to pay for reconstruction, so the banksters end up owning everything; it's always WIN/WIN for them, and LOSE/LOSE for the rest of us. But this never happens to any Jews - when Goldman-Sachs prints free money, they give it to other Jews for free, to buy up monopoly ownership of say all the aluminum in the world (they actually did that). No Jews complain. So then I say: With group rights, comes group responsibility.

Monday, October 14, 2019

Google's stealth plan to defeat Trump in 2020



The only way Trump can lose in 2020

WND's David Kupelian lays out the battlefield and explains Democrats' secret weapon

Thomas Paine famously said "These are times that try men's souls." And right now really seems like one of those times.

A dark cloud of madness has settled over the Democratic Party. After convincing themselves and millions of Americans, without evidence, that our democratically elected president is a traitor, a secret double agent serving an enemy power, the Mueller report finally revealed that the "Trump Russia collusion" narrative was the worst political hoax in U.S. history. But instead of slinking away in disgrace – or, heaven forbid, apologizing – the Democrats took a couple weeks off to rest and regroup, then launched another "Trump is a traitor" hoax – this time moving on from Russia to its next-door neighbor, Ukraine.

In keeping with Democrats' trademark tactic of projection, everything they are now accusing Trump of doing – colluding with Ukraine to rig an election, personally profiting from his high government position, etc. – they themselves did. Repeatedly, provably and brazenly.

Meanwhile, their party's presidential hopefuls – at least all their top-tier candidates – are corrupt, compromised, deranged people who lie as easily as breathing.

Do I exaggerate?

Consider that Sen. Bernie Sanders insists that convicted terrorists – specifically including Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who in 2013 slaughtered three and maimed close to 300 with nail-filled pressure-cooker bombs – should be allowed to vote. Sen. Elizabeth Warren introduced a bill in June that would grant reparations for homosexuals. "Beto" O'Rourke promises to send police to your home to confiscate your legally purchased firearms or drag you off to prison – plus, now he says he wants to eliminate tax exemptions for all Christian churches that refuse to celebrate same-sex marriage!

Meanwhile, if you’re a Trump supporter, all of these candidates regard you as an ignorant racist at best, and see President Trump as another Hitler.

And yet, one of these candidates (or else Hillary Clinton if she jumps into the race as many increasingly expect) may well be elected president of the United States a year from now.

If that happens – sorry, but kiss your country goodbye.

Again I ask: Am I exaggerating? If you pay attention to the news, you know I am not.

But how, you might well ask, could such a deranged person as any of the top Democratic presidential candidates possibly win, seeing as they all support suicidal and frankly idiotic policies like open borders, free healthcare for everyone in the world, emptying out our prisons and so forth? How could American voters possibly choose one of them?

Well, consider the forces arrayed on their side: America's educational system, almost entirely in leftwing hands, is busily indoctrinating the next generation, from our colleges and universities down through high school, middle and elementary school, all the way to pre-school, where toddlers are regularly subjected to demonic "drag queen story hour" indoctrination sessions.

Then there's the entire elite news media, the bureaucratic Deep State, the permanent elite ruling class in Washington, D.C., the entertainment media, "woke" corporations like the NBA, and on and on.

And then – as if this battle wasn't already lopsided enough – consider that people of this same radical elitist leftwing mindset have stealthily taken over the internet through their mega-monopolies of Google, Facebook, Amazon and others. As a result, vital prolife, conservative and Christian voices, including WorldNetDaily – as we have long documented – are daily banned, de-monetized, de-platformed, suppressed and otherwise made to "disappear." Free speech and a free press are definitely NOT leftwing values.

Perhaps most concerning right now: Leaders of Google, the most powerful company in the world, believe Trump's 2016 electoral triumph represented a huge failure on their part – they just didn't try hard enough on Hillary Clinton's behalf. And we know, thanks to multiple courageous ex-Google whistleblowers, that Google fully intends to get the job done right this time. That's right: They mean to make sure Trump loses in November 2020 and that one of their neo-Marxist candidates ends up as leader of the once-free world.

One of Google and Facebook's most crucial strategies for making sure this happens is to silence powerful voices of truth that expose their schemes and lies and effectively inform and rally the pro-American "troops" to preserve, protect and defend their great nation.

As Jefferson wrote in his 1823 letter to Lafayette, "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed." Unfortunately, Big Tech is intent on America not having a free press, in shaping public opinion in its leftist image, and in suppressing dissenting voices like WND's. And that's the only way any of the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates could possibly win a year from now.

Bottom line: Big Tech's two most urgent tasks right now are defeating Trump in the 2020 election and making dissenting voices disappear. They're still kicking themselves for having failed during the 2016 election and don't intend to make the same mistake again. Incredibly, says top Google researcher Dr. Robert Epstein, Google is now poised to swing as many as 15 million votes in next year's presidential election – toward the Democratic candidate!

Wednesday, October 9, 2019

"EAT SHIT AND LIVE!" Liberal shit-heads claim fecal transplants and donor stool capsules needed to maintain mental health!

HOLY SHIT! 

Liberal "professor" and chief of psychiatry at the University of Calgary suggests:

"POOP PILLS AND PROBIOTICS COULD BE GAME-CHANGER - CAN MENTAL ILLNESS BE TREATED THROUGH THE GUT?!

From here:

The rise of 'psychobiotics'?

No area of psychiatry is as hot, or controversial today as the idea of manipulating the gut to alter the mind

- The Stupid just keeps coming!

"We now think mental illness is essentially a brain illness, and it may be that it isn’t."Getty Images




The calls started pouring in soon after word spread that Dr. Valerie Taylor was testing fecal microbiota transplantation — transferring poop from one body to another — for bipolar disorder.
The mental health condition is different from depression. It comes with mania, the “up” swings that can make people feel superhuman. “But so many people with depression called wanting to take part in the study we felt we had an obligation to try,” said Taylor, chief of psychiatry at the University of Calgary.
Dr. Valerie Taylor Handout
Two years after spearheading the bipolar study, the first of its kind in the world, Taylor has now launched a second study testing fecal transplants in people with depression, as well as a third for depression in people who also have irritable bowel syndrome.

“The literature that we’re on to something has grown,” said Taylor. “But we’re not Goop,” she added, referring to Gwyneth Paltrow’s often airy lifestyle brand. “We want to know if there’s something here or not.”

No area of psychiatry is as hot, or controversial today as the idea of manipulating the gut to alter the mind. The trillions of bacteria living in the human gut have been shown to play a crucial role in gut-brain communication, researchers write in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. The hope is that enhancing good gut microbes — whether with probiotics, fecal transplants or capsules filled with donor stool, or by adding sauerkraut or other fermented foods to the diet — may be the answer to intractable depression, the kind conventional treatments can’t touch.
It could also fundamentally alter the way we conceptualize mental illness. “We now think mental illness is essentially a brain illness, and it may be that it isn’t,” Taylor said.

Gastro-intestinal problems are common among people with depression and anxiety, and studies suggest people with depression have a different gut flora than people without. Intestinal bacteria also produce serotonin, dopamine and other brain chemicals that regulate mood.

There are also direct connections via the vagus nerve, which connects nerves in the gastro-intestinal system to those in the brain. Years ago, doctors used to cut away the vagus nerve as a way to treat peptic ulcers. But people who underwent a “vagotomy” showed higher rates of psychiatric illness post surgery.

Recent estimates put the number of bacteria in the human gut at slightly more than the total number of human cells. “The collective genome of these bacterial cells, the gut microbiome, vastly exceed the amount of human DNA present in the body, such that, for every one human gene we have over 100 bacterial genes,” Mary Butler, of University College Cork in Ireland and her co-authors wrote in the psychiatric journal.
We want to know if there's something here or not
The field is still in its infancy, the authors wrote, and it’s premature to suggest “psychobiotics” or poop transplants are ready to replace standard treatments. For one thing, to be successful, donor bacteria has to attach to the recipient’s gut.

Just how gut bacteria communicate with the brain, and the brain with the gut, isn’t entirely clear, though Taylor suspects the immune part is paramount. Gut bacteria influences the immune system. Stress causes inflammation and inflammation can lead to conditions like gut dysbiosis, which has been linked with altered brain function.

There is some evidence certain probiotics — particularly bifidobacterium and lactobacillus supplements — can improve human moods. Results for anxiety have been mixed, though one small study found fermented, probiotic-containing foods appeared to protect against social anxiety disorder in people with higher-than-normal levels of neuroticism, Butler and her co-authors reported.

Fecal transplants, for their part, have a near 100 per cent success rate in curing antibiotic-resistant Clostridium difficile, a hospital-acquired super bug, and Taylor believes they do a better job at recolonizing the gut than probiotics.

The hope is that enhancing good gut microbes may be the answer to intractable depression. Getty Images
Part of her enthusiasm comes from “really profound” animal studies showing that when stool from depressed humans is transplanted into germ-free mice — mice raised in ultra-sterile environments and free of intestinal bugs — the rodents show depressive-like behaviours.

“Humans aren’t mice and mice aren’t humans,” said Taylor, who moved to Calgary from Toronto’s Women’s College Hospital a year ago to take on the headship of the U of Calgary program. “But there’s clearly a signal.”

The Calgary depression studies will be comparing fecal tablets — poop pills — against a placebo. The bipolar study, still underway in Toronto, involves injecting specially prepared stool from a donor into the recipient’s colon via colonoscopy. It’s a randomized trial: some are injected with donor faces, others re-infused with their own poop.

“We really wanted to look at quite ill individuals and say we’re going to take out the entire gut microbiome and introduce a new one and see if we can recolonize,” Taylor said.

But there are caveats: Stool donors have to be rigorously screened. “It’s easier to donate blood than feces,” Taylor said. One Toronto stool donor program recently reported that, in the first two years of the program, only two of 322 prospective donors — 0.6 per cent — ultimately passed screening.
Can you cause schizophrenia if you gave somebody stool from someone with schizophrenia?
Donors also must have zero history of mental illness, in either themselves or first-degree relatives.
“Can you cause schizophrenia if you gave somebody stool from someone with schizophrenia? We don’t know,” Taylor said. But certainly the mouse studies suggest these behaviours are transferrable.
There are other potential disasters: In June, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an alert and halted all fecal transplants after two immune-compromised people contracted drug-resistant E. coli infections from the same donor. One died.

“In the U.S. there are people doing this in unlicensed and unregulated ways,” Taylor said. In Canada, the fecal matter used in the transplants is considered a “biologic drug,” and regulated like one, by Health Canada.

Taylor is cautious, noting in a recent editorial that charlatans and self-appointed wellness gurus have been all too happy to suggest cleaning out the colon can instantly improve wellbeing. We need to manage the hype, she said. Still, something needs to be done to help people for whom standard treatments provide little relief, or unbearable side effects.


“I would love to be able to show this actually works and that it’s potentially game changing,” Taylor said. “We’re not there yet. But I think we’re getting there.”














Tuesday, October 8, 2019

One UN To Rule Them All...!



One UN to rule them all, 

Many drones to find them,

One LEOforce to jail them all, 


and in ignorant darkness bind them,

In the Land of Brussells where Politicians lie




Today's Question:

Why is the elitist establishment so obsessed with meat?

I don't know how many people have noticed this, but in the past three months it has been impossible for a person to throw a beef burger patty in any direction on the compass without hitting a news article on the "destructive effects" of the meat industry in terms of "climate change" as well as articles on the supposedly vast health benefits of a vegetarian or vegan diet. This narrative has culminated in a tidal wave of stories about vegetable-based meat companies like Beyond Meat and their rise to stock market stardom. The word on the street is, meat based diets are going the way of the Dodo, and soon, by environmental necessity, we will all be vegetarians.

For at least the past 10 years the United Nations has been aggressively promoting the concept of a meat free world, based on claims that accelerated land use and greenhouse gas emissions are killing the Earth. 

In the west, militant leftists with dreams of socialist Utopia have adopted a kind of manifesto in the Green New Deal, and an integral part of their agenda is the end to the availability of meat to the common man. Some of these elitists have argued in favor of heavy taxation on meat products to reduce public consumption; other have argued for an outright ban.

The problem with this dietary revolution is that it is based primarily on junk science and cherry-picked data, along with outright lies and propaganda. The majority of studies and articles covering this issue are decidedly biased, left leaning and collectivist in nature. 

Now, I plan to touch on this issue, but what I really want to zero in on is the "why" of the matter — why are the elites targeting human meat consumption, and why are they willing to lie about its effects in order to get us to abandon our burgers and steaks? What is the real agenda here...?

First, lets tackle the climate change issue. The U.N. claims that human food production must change drastically in order to stop global warming and damage to the environment, and these changes must focus mainly on meat production and 'methane gases.' 

In other words, they assert that cow farts are killing the planet. This is a rather convenient story for the elites as they push their carbon taxation agenda. It seems everything we do as humans must be monitored, restricted or taxed, from breathing to procreating to eating meat, otherwise the Earth is doomed.

In past articles I have written extensively on the direct ties between the U.N.'s global warming hysteria and the push for global government. In particular, I've mentioned the writings of former U.N. assistant secretary general Robert Muller. In his manifesto collected on a website titled "Good Morning World," Muller argues that global governance must be achieved using the idea of "protecting the Earth" and environmentalism as the key components. Through fear of environmental doomsday, the public could be convinced to accept global government as a necessary edifice to keep society from destroying itself.

Muller initiated such programs in the early 1990s, which were similar in tone to the Club of Rome think tank, a group of consultants to the U.N. which called for a stop to human population growth. In their white paper titled 'The First Global Revolution,' the Club of Rome stated:

"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 behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

The statement comes from Chapter 5 — The Vacuum, which covers their position on the need for global government. The quote is relatively clear; a common enemy must be conjured in order to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner, and the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator.

From public admissions from U.N. officials and the Club of Rome, we can see that climate change is a narrative driven by ideology, not science, and that the real goal is global governance, not saving the planet. As for the "science" these ideologues say supports their demands, there is none.

There is absolutely no hard evidence to support the claim that a cause and effect link between carbon emissions and rising temperatures exists. In fact, there is more evidence to show that the reverse is true — that higher temperatures result in greater animal populations and thus more carbon emissions and thus more food for vegetation. Ask any global warming "expert" from the NOAA, NASA or the IPCC what percentage of a temperature increase is caused by cars versus cows and what evidence there is to support their assertions? They won't be able to produce an answer.

They will simply claim that the evidence is irrefutable because the temperatures are rising and so are carbon. In other words, their argument is that correlation always equals causation. But are temperatures really rising? What if the entire basis for global warming hysteria is fabricated?

The NOAA has been caught on multiple occasions doing just that. By going back to previously recorded temperature stats and tweaking them to make them lower, the NOAA then makes it appear as though the Earth is warming in a historic trend. However, the unaltered temperature record shows that the Earth has always had warming periods which run in natural cycles, followed by cooling and using tracking increased solar activity. 

You know that giant nuclear reactor in the sky that is 1.3 million times bigger than the Earth? Yeah, it has a lot more to do with the Earth's climate patterns than cow farts do...

If one compares NOAA data on temperature changes over the past century from 1999 to the data the NOAA has released over the past few years, it is easy to see the adjustments they made to their own older data in order to make it appear as though steady global warming is taking place. The NOAA's changes also make it appear as though temperature changes are closely tracking rising carbon emissions.

Here we see the climate change hoax in action, as well as the U.N. and the Club of Rome conspiracy to engineer an environmental threat that will provide a rationale for global government. But what does all this have to do with meat?


The climate change myth is simply a means to multiple ends. And, one of the things the elites are using it to unravel is society's eating habits. The purpose behind the war on meat is less clear, but I do have some theories based on historical evidence as well as scientific evidence that shows ruling oligarchies have always tried to restrict meat consumption by the "peasant class" whenever possible.

In feudal Europe in the Middle Ages, the presence of meat in a diet was very rare for the peasant class. Farm animals were strictly controlled property, given to peasant farmers as tools for working the land, not for eating. Hunting wild game was difficult as the ruling royal families often claimed ownership of all the best hunting grounds within the country. After multiple peasant revolts, such as the Great Peasant's Revolt of 1381 in England, the elites banned hunting parties, as they were suspected of being used as cover for peasants to train in military tactics and to plan rebellions.

Peasants caught poaching "the king's deer" were punished severely — including hanging, castration, blinding and being sewn into a deer carcass and chased down by ferocious dogs.

This did not stop peasants from eating meat at times though. When possible they would eat small game. But their diets consisted primarily of pottage and porridge mad from grains, beans and root vegetables, along with black rye bread.

In feudal Japan, meat eating, not just hunting, was specifically banned for over 1,000 years, starting in 675 AD. The ban was based on the melding of Buddhist beliefs and Shinto. Of course, while the law was enforced for peasants, the elite ruling class and the samurai warrior class never actually gave meat up. Meat was often eaten by the elites, under the auspices of improving health. When given as a gift to a feudal lord, pickled meats were labeled "medicine" in order to avoid open defiance of the laws.

This selective ban continued until the Europeans arrived on Japanese shores, and the reintroduction of meat dishes began to spread. By the late 1800s the meat ban was officially lifted. It was believed by the Japanese of the era that Westerners had superior physiques because of their meat-based diets and that Japanese physiques had been subdued by their vegetable and grain based diets. There is some truth to this observation.

Today, the vegetarian ideology is tied inexorably to ideologies such as socialism, globalism and extremist forms of environmentalism. There are every few vegetarian promoters that are not politically motivated. This has caused a rash of propaganda, attempting to rewrite the history of the human diet.

Even though human beings have been omnivores for millions of years, the anti-meat campaign claims that humans were actually long time vegetarians. They do this by comparing humans to our closest evolutionary relatives, like chimpanzees and gorillas, and arguing that these animals have a strict vegetable diet (which is not exactly true).

Of course, Native American tribes, living closest to how our prehistoric ancestors lived long ago, had meat heavy diets, but don't expect the environmentalists to accept this reality. What they conveniently do not mention is that over 2 million years ago human ancestors broke from their vegetable diet and began eating meat. 

Not only this, but the diet changed our very physical makeup. 

We grew far stronger, and smarter.

Yes, that's right, the rise of meat in the human diet tracks almost exactly with the rise of human intelligence and advances in tools and technology.

Vegetarian and vegan diets have been shown to lower overall IQ due to lack of nutrients required for brain health. This is because the human brain needs fatty acids such as Omega 3 which are only found in saturated fats in meats. There is no substitute in the plant world. Saturated fats from animal protein have been shown to increase cognitive function as well as memory.

The brain uses almost 20 percent of the human body's calorie intake in order to function, and much of this intake requires saturated fats and even cholesterol. Contrary to decades of misinformation, animal fats are good for you.

Pro athletes also must revert to a meat-based diet in order to build up superior muscle structure, and another factor which is rarely mentioned is the increase in estrogen-like compounds in plant based foods (mainly soy), which can reduce testosterone.

And here we get to the crux of the issue. It is perhaps by mere coincidence, or perhaps just observation on the part of elitist dynasties, but meat consumption has always been connected with an unruly peasant class. This is because meat eating contributes directly to greater cognitive function, as well as better memory and muscle mass.

While much is discussed about how artificial meat like Beyond meat has effectively copied the taste or appearance of a normal hamburger, very little is discussed about what is lacking. Beyond meat has zero cholesterol and no amino acids or fatty acids like Omega 3 or vitamins like B12. It uses coconut oil to mimic saturated animal fats, which does not duplicate their value to the human brain or body. Essentially, a Beyond Meat burger is designed to copy the taste of a burger without any of the benefits.

My theory? That meat is a cognitive enhancer as well as a strength enhancer, and the elites are seeking to remove it from our diet based on lies because such a change could contribute to a dumber and weaker population that would be easier to control.


Fake meat is also highly processed and uses a complicated method to mimic beef protein structures. It can only be created in a lab and mass produced in a factory. You will never be able to make your own Beyond Meat burger. Meaning, by banning or taxing meat into oblivion and replacing it with an industrial substitute, the establishment will have made society effectively dependent on them for a significant portion of their dietary needs. Not only do they hope to make us dumber and weaker, they also hope to make us desperately dependent.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith   
                                                                                                                       












Tuesday, October 1, 2019

MORE PROOF TRUMP IS THE "CONTROLLED OPPOSITION" AFTER ALL

Trump cannot be anti-globalist while working with global elites

By Brandon Smith 
From Bob Livingstone's Personal Liberty Alerts

In the summer of 2016 during the election campaign I examined the Trump phenomenon and how it relates to the globalist narrative. I concluded that Trump would be president based on the fact that having a (supposedly) hardcore nationalist and populist conservative in the White House over the next four years would actually be highly beneficial to the elites. At the time the Federal Reserve was getting ready to tighten liquidity, which would inevitably lead to market volatility and a crash in fundamentals. By the end of Trump's first term, or perhaps at the beginning of his second term, the recessionary crisis would become obvious to the general public. Trump, and all conservatives, would be blamed for the resulting disaster that the banking elites engineered.

During the election it was unclear if Donald Trump was a puppet of the elites. He could have simply been a convenient scapegoat. Today, it is obvious that he is indeed controlled opposition.

As I've noted in numerous articles, Trump's associations with the globalists go way back. He was saved from crippling debts in multiple properties in Atlantic City during the 1990s by the Rothschilds. The Rothschild banking agent that handled Trump's bailout was none other than Wilber Ross, the senior managing director of Rothschild New York. Ross is now Trump's Commerce Secretary, which indicates that this relationship continues to this day.

In 2016 Trump offered positions in the White House to a vast array of global elitists, some of them from the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank whose stated goals include the erasure of borders and the end of national sovereignty. These members include:
  • Elaine Chao, United States Secretary of Transportation
  • Jamie Dimon, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum
  • Jim Donovan, Deputy Treasury Secretary
  • Larry Fink, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum
  • Neil M. Gorsuch, Supreme Court Justice
  • Vice Admiral Robert S. Harward, National Security Advisor (declined appointment)
Trump then went on to bring in long time elites with ties to the globalist establishment such as John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Robert Lighthizer, Larry Kudlow and Steve Mnuchin, etc. The list goes on and on...

During the campaign, Trump consistently (and rightly) criticized Hillary Clinton's many ties to the banking cabal, including her close relationship with internationalist banks like Goldman Sachs. He also railed against globalism and argued that the economic recovery under Obama was actually a massive financial bubble — the markets were artificially propped up by the Federal Reserve's stimulus and low interest rates, and indicators like unemployment stats were rigged.

Yet, after his election Trump proceeded to saturate his cabinet with the same banking elites he once attacked, and then he took full credit for the markets and the fake employment and GDP numbers only months later.

Once in office, Trump suddenly abandoned his promise to indict the Clintons, and any pursuit of fighting the globalists fell by the wayside.

Instead, Trump turned all his attention on China, feeding into the false East/West paradigm and opening the door to an economic world war as a useful distraction for the globalists while they continued to pull the plug on economic life support.

If Trump was going to do battle with the globalist establishment, why would he surround himself with so many elites and why would he hold up China as a primary threat instead of global banking institutions?

We still hear Trump talk about how the Federal Reserve is run by ignorant people, and how the "future belongs to patriots, not globalists," but Trump's hyperfocus on the market bubble and the trade war with China do nothing to combat the globalist agenda. In fact, these actions help the globalists immensely.

This bizarre behavior vindicates my deepest suspicions during the election — Trump is not just an unwitting scapegoat, he is a participant in the game, playing the theatrical role of the bumbling villain.

In the script, he is the anti-globalist who trips over his own hubris and causes the downfall of the most powerful empire in the history of the world. He is playing the conservative that proves once and for all why conservative philosophy is "evil" and why the leftists were right all along. Part of his job is to co-opt the liberty movement, redirect its energies into pointless pursuits, and to make us look ridiculous or dangerous by the end of his presidency.

However, there is a bit of a conundrum forming for the elites.

Trump's true nature is slowly being revealed, such as when he openly supports Red Flag gun laws designed to usurp gun rights through back door confiscation.

Or, when he commits to a military buildup by sending troops to Saudi Arabia in an obvious first step toward war with Iran.

This is causing many conservatives in the liberty movement to question Trump's loyalties (as they should). The elites have to keep conservatives and liberty activists blindly riding the Trump train for as long as possible, for if we begin to question the narrative too soon, it becomes harder for them to draw us into supporting actions which will be blamed for the growing economic and geopolitical crisis.

It is vital that liberty activists understand that Trump is a psyop aimed specifically at them. As the leftist media outlet Bloomberg once happily predicted in an editorial titled 'The Tea Party Meets Its Maker', Trump could absorb conservative movements (those they called the "Tea Party") and destroy them once and for all.

Recent events and Trump's rhetoric are carefully staged to make him appear anti-globalist, and the aggressive nature of this propaganda was predictable. The elites have to draw conservatives back in somehow, and so they are throwing as many crumbs as they can from the Trump table without him actually accomplishing anything in our favor.

Getting rid of John Bolton was the beginning, as Bolton represented a hated element among many liberty activists and the establishment had no choice but to finally reduce his footprint in the White House. However, this was too little too late, as many conservatives are already well aware of the various elites permeating Trump's cabinet. He would have to get rid of all of them in order to impress us.

And so, the elites moved on to phase two...

The latest Ukrainian scandal and the potential impeachment of Trump is a perfect example of globalist reverse psychology. The impeachment will likely go nowhere, just as Russiagate went nowhere, but it will indeed pull many conservatives back onto the Trump train as they assume the establishment is "out to get him" even though he is working directly with them.

The Ukraine scandal will blow back on Joe Biden, removing him from the Democratic field running for president and leaving the door open for either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. I continue to predict, as I did in July, that Elizabeth Warren will be the Democratic candidate in 2020.

The sudden reopening of discussion on the Clinton emails will lead some liberty activists to assume that maybe, this time, Trump is going to follow through on his claim that he would investigate and prosecute the Clintons.

I say it though I think many reading this know, Trump is not going to touch the Clintons. But he will pretend he is looking into the matter if it helps lure conservatives back into the false narrative.

Trump's U.N. speech in which he criticized globalism was perhaps the most blatant attempt to sucker conservatives into thinking maybe Trump is indeed "playing 4D chess."

 He's not.

Rather, Trump is playing the role he has always played, just as he played a role on WWE Wrestling, or his role in The Apprentice; it is Trump's job to attack the globalists, and it is their job to pretend to attack him.

All the while the real targets of attack are conservatives, sovereignty activists and freedom advocates.

The purpose of this facade, this fake wrestling match between Trump and the elites?

To get conservatives invested in a false paradigm, to co-opt our movement and our momentum, and ultimately to chain us to Trump's reputation and then drown us when he goes down.

While activists wait around for Trump to take action against the globalists, they sit idle accomplishing very little.

While activists put all their hopes in Trump as a solution to the globalist problem, they remain unprepared for the fallout.

The masterstroke of the elites using Trump as a weapon, is that it means one man is able to nullify the activism of millions.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith                                                                                                                              

How and Why Trump Will Lose and the GOP Will Be Destroyed in 2020

He’s a successful businessman who won the presidency after beating his out-of-touch New Yorker opponent, despite never having held any kind of elected office before.

Once in power, he launches a vast trade war against the pleas of economists, issuing hundreds of tariffs.

He cracks down on immigration, ordering a million people sent back to Mexico.

He’s disdained by the elites, but cheered by American voters he calls this country’s “forgotten men and women in America – forgotten no more.”

Amid a soaring stock market, he champions a vast infrastructure push – stamping his own name on one of the biggest new buildings.

You may think I’m talking about President Trump.

But I’m actually describing America’s 31st President, Herbert Hoover.

The similarities between the two Presidents are almost eerie – and they won’t stop with what I’ve just described.

Research shows…

Just like President Hoover in 1929, Donald Trump is facing a once-in-a-generation crisis… a disaster that’s been years in the making, about to hit its tipping point.

And just like the case with Herbert Hoover – when this crisis erupts, it won’t just mean the end of the current administration.

Like Herbert Hoover, Donald Trump won’t be just a one-term President. He will be, like Herbert Hoover, the last Republican President America sees for a generation, or even longer.

You may think this is impossible – that there’s no way we can write off a President who seems to have nine political lives… someone who has already defied astronomical odds and survived so much.
But as you’ll see – what’s coming to America really has nothing to do with Donald Trump at all.

What’s about to happen is a matter of simple math.

Even as I write these words, an enormous political movement is building.

It is stronger than the celebrity movement that put Barack Obama in the White House. It’s even stronger than any force behind FDR – the man who won four Presidential elections, and banished the GOP from power for 24 years.

The new and rising coalition in America will be stronger than all of those movements… combined.

You see, the tide is already beginning to turn in America.

In the midterm elections held Tuesday, November 6, Republicans lost more House seats than they’ve lost in any election since the Watergate scandal.

Even worse…
Republicans lost seats in overwhelmingly pro-Trump states, from Alabama to Oklahoma to Utah.

Republican Defeats in Red Territory

How is it possible that Republicans are being crushed, all over the country, without a major scandal, in a strong economy, and in states Trump has overwhelming support?

The answer is the most important political story of our lifetimes…

Far more important than the stories that dominate the news… far more than any controversy or scandal you'll hear about in this election.

I’m talking, of course, about changing demographics.

In short - 10,000 Americans are turning 18 every day and joining the voting population for the first time.

But today’s young men and women are far more liberal than any other time in history - with polls showing that most of these new voters “reject capitalism.”

As a result, this radicalism is driving today’s Democratic Party farther to the left than any other time in American history.

It’s has already contributed to the rise of politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, who calls herself a Socialist, and inspired as many as 1,152 people to join the Socialist Party in a single day…

Just think: What will 10,000 new voters like this, turning 18 each day between now and the election, mean for Trump’s chances in 2020?

After all, President Trump only won the three Midwestern states he needed to win in 2016 – Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – by a combined 77,000 votes.

With 70,000 millennials reaching voting age each week today, it isn’t hard to see how the tide could turn in the 2020 election.

And it won’t stop there…

Using their soon-to-be unshakeable hold on power, I believe the new generation of Democratic Party leaders – what we’re calling the coming “Blue Wave” – will have profound consequences on America.

In short, we believe this coming political tidal wave will elect an entire legion of politicians who:

Reward their coalition of “Blue Wave” voters by establishing a $15 minimum wage nationwide.

Forgive most if not all of student debt (now totaling $1.5 trillion.)

Institute a Universal Basic Income which will cost taxpayers as much as $3 trillion a year.

Double or even triple America’s already staggering national debt as the country shoulders a more and more generous welfare state, to reward the Party’s backers.

Implement a national sales tax, and hike taxes on America’s wealthiest citizens, in order to partially pay for a national single-payer, government-run health care system.

You probably still aren’t convinced that President Trump’s re-election defeat is already doomed – that there’s no way even he can survive this.

After all, Donald Trump has already survived so much…. And in 2020 he’ll have advantages he didn’t before, like a booming economy and incumbency.

But just remember, the “Blue Wave” already put Democrats in control of some of the most conservative places in America during the midterm elections.

As a Republican President who’s facing this demographic wall, he’s simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Think back to the lesson of Herbert Hoover, who at one point in his presidency, seemed to have everything going for him...

In 1928, he came into office with a solid reputation as a savvy businessman. He had won a decisive victory in the Electoral College, despite never having held elected office before…

In fact, like Trump, Hoover came to power by defeating his out-of-touch New Yorker opponent, Governor Al Smith. Like Trump, he took office during a time of relative prosperity. And once in office, he also carried out protectionist trade policies, took a divisive stand against illegal immigration, and mounted a tireless campaign to protect American jobs…

He even slashed immigration to America by 90%, while cracking down on illegal immigration through deportations that targeted as many as 1.8 million people.

These actions won him the love of his die-hard supporters, and a wave of initial popularity in America.

If you asked any American in the year following Hoover’s victory in 1928, NO ONE would have ever dreamed that it would be another 24 years until a Republican won the White House again…
That for tens of millions of Americans, Herbert Hoover would be the last Republican president.

You see, behind the scenes, a new kind of political opposition was building. And America’s voting electorate was transforming in ways not just Herbert Hoover, but his whole GOP, were completely unprepared for…a force even bigger, and more permanent than, the economic disaster he’d soon be facing.

A massive “Blue Wave.”

Just like in 2018, the 1930 midterm elections saw Republicans suffering devastating midterm losses, losing 52 seats to Democrats.

It was a sign of things to come…

Two years later, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt won the Presidency in a landslide on a campaign that promised a massive expansion of the welfare state.

You may think this was due to the Great Depression – and that is partially correct...

But there was a much more important force at work… one which probably sounds familiar to you today.

FDR was unlike any president that had come before him.

He proclaimed it was his duty to take an activist role in managing America’s economy and natural resources.

He promised to get to work “distributing wealth and products more equitably, of adapting existing economic organizations to the service of the people.”

Once in power, his administration got right to work “spreading the wealth around” as promised.

In the first hundred days of his Presidency, Roosevelt pushed through 15 major laws as a part of his New Deal program to massively expand government’s role in America’s economy.

His Agricultural Adjustment Act, for example, actually paid farmers to produce fewer crops, in order to bolster the incomes of his rural voters even as thousands of poverty-stricken Americans faced starvation.

He was the first President to institute a minimum wage – leading to massive unemployment.

In 1935, he created Social Security, laying the groundwork for America’s modern welfare state.

This was the only change he considered more important than America’s new minimum wage.

In those first years in office, no welfare program was too expensive for FDR to pursue. He ignored his campaign promise to balance the budget and ballooned the deficit to a then-unheard of $6.2 billion.

And as he poured billions of dollars into handouts to reward his supporters, he also punished his enemies with taxes and regulations.

His 1935 “wealth tax” for example, hiked taxes on America’s wealthiest citizens to as much as 75% of their incomes.

Today, most people think that FDR got re-elected to unprecedented third and fourth terms because his policies helped fight the Great Depression, but that’s simply not the case.

Inflation levels reached as high as 10% a year in FDR’s America, and unemployment averaged 18% during his first eight years in power.

But to the masses clamoring for his handouts, it didn’t matter…

Four years later, they awarded him an epic mandate with his decisive re-election, even though unemployment was 60% higher than it had been when he’d taken power four years earlier.
FDR won re-election with the largest popular vote majority of any presidential candidate ever up until that time.
How did FDR win presidential elections again and again, despite presiding over so much misery?
Reward your supporters. Punish your enemies.

In his famous Madison Square Garden Speech, he called his political opponents “enemies of peace” as well as bankers and war profiteers, and said of them, “I welcome their hatred.”

Because FDR knew something his opponents didn’t: the masses want to be promised something that they wouldn’t have to pay for.

After his re-election victory, the U.S. entered recession again in 1937, with unemployment spiking to 20%.

But again, that hardly mattered…

Ultimately, the stretch of one-party rule in America under Democrats would last 24 years.

It took a nationally celebrated war hero in Dwight Eisenhower to finally return the White House to Republicans in 1952. But by then, America was unrecognizable from what it had once been.

America Transformed

In those 24 years of a progressive white house, the national debt soared 956%, from $23 billion to $243 billion, while the dollar lost more than half its value… including a 75% devaluation practically overnight with the 1934 Gold Reserve Act.

Observing the stagnation, heightened taxes, and persistent poverty in the United States, the British magazine The Economist wrote in 1938 that, “for the moment, the United States seems to have forgotten how to grow.”

That’s because, while FDR’s handouts bought voters’ loyalties by the millions, they couldn’t buy anything else.

Not prosperity… not lasting peace… and certainly not any kind of security for America’s working class.

And today– the system of government overreach FDR put in place remains in place, and it is about to be cemented by a new generation of voters who demand government take an active role in their lives and finances.

Just like before, the new “Blue Wave” of Democrats is making promises that will buy them voters’ loyalty for a generation.

In California, for example – America’s largest state by far – the Democratic Party has officially adopted the cause of a universal basic income into their political platform – a program that guarantees every citizen a fixed amount of income.

And now even more conservative states like Georgia, Mississippi, West Virginia and North Dakota are beginning to seriously consider basic income for its citizens, too.

While the intentions of guaranteeing every U.S. citizen a minimum income are well-intentioned, mark my words:

These coming mandates will have catastrophic consequences.

According to nonpartisan economists, Universal Basic Income could ultimately cost the American taxpayer as much as $3 TRILLION per year in new taxes.

The scary part is, the left has even managed to convince those on the right that it can work – that it’s a GOOD idea.

For example, the conservative economist Charles Murray has recently come out in favor of universal basic income.

And even the right-wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, is now supporting the idea.
And this is just the start…

The same sense of entitlement will overtake our healthcare system too…

Medicare-for-all – an idea for government-run health care so radical only Bernie Sanders used to support it in the Senate – now has the support of 120 co-sponsors in Congress.

Kenneth Thorpe, professor of health policy at Emory University, places the cost at $2.4 trillion a year.
If you thought Obamacare was a disaster, you haven’t seen anything yet.

Already, the leading Democrats for the 2020 nomination for President are calling to forgive Puerto Rico’s $70 billion debt.

Do you think that’s about good fiscal policy– or about the 300,000 Puerto Ricans – all eligible to vote upon registering– who have moved to the crucial swing state Florida since last year?

Meanwhile, Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren – surging in polls – has introduced a plan to cancel $640 billion of student debt.

Who will pay for it? You guessed it.

Warren’s proposal is based on tax hikes – targeting America’s highest earners.

Now, politicians will tell you these proposals are about things like “fairness” or “equality.”

But what they’re really about, like everything in politics, is power.

As the political scientist Harold Lasswell observed, politics at its core is about “who gets what, when, and how.”

Today is no different. And as the “blue Wave” gains strength in 2020 and beyond, the next generation of America’s voters – the Millennials – will be deciding who gets what, when, and how.

.The Real “Blue Wave” Is Coming

The coming “Blue Wave” is much bigger than just one or two election cycles.
Because each year going, there will be millions more young voters that join their ranks.
This is becoming so impossible to ignore, even the mainstream media’s catching on:
This is it – the “Blue Wave” is here.

As one retiring Republican Senator, Jeff Flake, warns, “At a certain point, the flood becomes the thing most worthy of attention… It might be time to build an ark.”


Or as Pat Buchanan, former senior advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan and one-time GOP presidential candidate puts it, the Republican Party is facing “a demographic death sentence.”