Tuesday, August 8, 2017

What's Driving President Trump's Low Approval Rating?



    A friend of mine recently wrote to me about President Trump's low approval rating.  He said, "The media claims Donald's support is down to 38%.  I don't believe it.  Everyone I know is still behind him and believes he is the best thing for this country."
     Of course, one robin doesn't make a spring.  My friend has a higher-than-average education; and, from my knowledge of him (and that he's a retired computer science teacher,) I know that he's very bright.  He probably associates mainly with bright people (such as I.) A typical leftist might grasp at straws ans accuse him of dwelling in something like their safe space: an echo chamber of ideas.
     What about people who live and work outside my friend's circle of acquaintances?  What about the 62% who either disapprove of President Trump's performance or the clueless clods who have no opinion of him because they spend most of their time distracted by Game of Thrones, ESPN, or the Kardashians? The ones who'd rather look for Pokemon than look for a job?


     Rather than taking the words of the Counterfeit News Network and BSNBC at face value, let's take a look at the polls on President Trump's 38% approval rating. There are several points to consider.

  1. The 38% in question is the finding of the same pollsters who told us that Clinton had a 97% chance of winning the 2016 election. The Rasmussen poll, which came closest to being accurate in 2016, which uses the most reliable sampling, and which asks only people who are likely voters, says Trump has a 41% approval rating.  That's about 3 percentage points lower than Obama's at the same point in his first term of office. Obama had a honeymoon period; Trump didn't.
  2. Trump is attacked daily in the corporate media, while Obama largely got a free ride.  According a survey of news reports a month or so ago, the most Trump-friendly "news" outlet (Fox) was negative on Trump around 60 percent of the time.  CNN was negative 97% of the time, and they even chose to ignore important issues just so they could hammer him over petty lies such as whether he ate two scoops of ice cream or just one.
  3. During the 2016 campaign, voters naturally compared Trump to Clinton and, of course, Trump won.  After nine months of hammering, with no flesh-and-blood opponent, most voters unconsciously compare Trump to an imaginary ideal President.  
  4. Voters have short memories.  During the campaign, the opposition was constantly saying in so many words that Trump was promising things that no one could achieve. Remember what Obama said to the Carrier air conditioning employees about Trump's promise to save their jobs and to bring manufacturing and coal jobs back to America? Obama called Donald Trump's jobs promises a cruel hoax.  (When half the jobs were returned, and other jobs opened up elsewhere, the Obamatards attacked Trump for not saving all the Carrier jobs and for not using traditional Republican means to save and create jobs.)  Remember what the Democrat naysayers said when Trump promised to raise the GDP to 2%, 2.5% or even higher?  (Now it's 2.6% and climbing.)  What about other economic indicators?  (They're all skyrocketing to their highest levels in 15 years.)  Curbing illegal aliens?  (Illegal border crossings are down by three fourths.)  Name the promise.  Except for the promises that depended on the cooperation of RINOs such as Songbird McCain, Snitch McConnell, Swish Graham, and Paul RINO, he has kept his promises beyond all expectation. After doing what the Democrats said was impossible, they whine that he didn't do enough.
  5. There's one other point about Trump's approval rating: the word approval is open to interpretation.  Voters can support every one of his initiatives and still not "approve" of him as a person.  By contrast, Justin Trudeau is destroying Canada; but, according to Business Insider, four out of ten Americans would rather have Trudeau as U.S. President.  And what words of praise does Business Insider have for Trudeau?  His flashy clothes and celebrity status.  But wait a minute.  If four out of ten Americans would rather have Trudeau than Trump, that would mean that six out of ten would rather have Trump or are not sure which they'd rather have. That goes back to what I said about Trump needing to be compared to a real person and not an imaginary ideal.  When compared to Clinton, Trump won.  Now, compared to Trudeau, Trump still wins.

 
     Now that Donald Trump has done more for the American people in seven months than Obama had done in eight years, what are the Democrats doing to counter his moves? They've come up with a new slogan: "A Better Deal."  
     A better deal than what?  A better deal than they've been giving us?  A better deal than Trump is already delivering?  Why are they promising a better deal now that they're out of power and can't deliver on their promises?  If they can do better than Donald Trump is now doing, why did they say his promises were cruel hoaxes that would be impossible for anyone to keep?

     They still don't realize that every political issue represents human needs and human desires.  They still think that political issues are all about public relations.  When the policies are disastrous for the American people, we don't need a better public relations initiative; we need better policies.
     We're supposed to believe that the Democrats' "better deal" will be given to us by the same people who gave us a really rotten deal.  So why doesn't it fill me with confidence?
     "A Better Deal"?  No thanks.  President Donald Trump is already giving us the best deal we've had in my lifetime.

Monday, August 8, 2016

The Corporate Shills in MSM are in Panic Mode over the Clinton Presidential Campaign's Meltdown

     Distressing news about Donald Trump has been coming hot and heavy, and a meltdown is clearly taking place; but hold on a minute.  Trump's campaign is not the one that's melting down; the corporation-controlled media is melting down.  The entities that used to be known as the "news media" are practically wearing tinfoil hats.  In case you missed some of it, here are some recent  items that the corporate shills are trying to pass off as news:
     The Associated Press published a 33 1/2-inch article in which a world Olympic committee member (himself an American who admits he supports Hillary Clinton) is warning that a Trump victory in November would imperil Los Angeles's bid to host the next Olympics. He offered no evidence for his incredible statement, and that's all the article said.  Who but a wildly desperate agency would devote almost a yard of newsprint to a non-story like that? 
     Reuters News Agency recently published a poll claiming that Clinton has bounced 9% or 10% ahead of Trump.  When you look at the sample surveyed, you find that almost half the sample were self-identified Democrats, and barely 10% called themselves independents. You probably know from experience that from 30% to 40% of the American public call themselves independents, and the rest are almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.  Not content with that blatant lie, Reuters has gone back to some of their previously published polls and changed their methodology to reflect their prearranged conclusions.
     ABC is making a big-to-do about the Republican leadership making contingency plans in case Trump drops out of the race due to his (ha, ha, ha!) low poll numbers.  The truth is, in every major race, strategists have to consider this possibility, however remote it may seem.  ABC knows this, but they're trying to build a story from it.  It's the biggest non-story of the year.
     When the mother of one of Hillary Clinton's Benghazi victims (yes, negligent homicide is murder) finally said on television what the warfare state shills had chosen to ignore for years, the media blistered Trump, supposedly for taking political advantage of a woman who was out of her mind with grief.  When it was Hillary's turn, she did the same, and the media blistered Trump for pointing out that, though the son was a hero, the father was not the son.
     And apparently no one in the corporate-shill media bothered to tell us that everything Mr.Khana lawyer who certainly knew bettertold us about the Constitution was a lie.  Not one of Trump's proposed measures Khan that condemned was unconstitutional.  Hillary called the mothers of her Benghazi victims liars; any careful reading of the Constitution reveals that Mr. Khan is a liar.
     No doubt, the father's grief was real, but it was far from pure.  Khan is a lawyer specializing in Muslim immigration from terrorist-infested countries in the Middle East and South Asia.  His website lists New York City as his office address, but the phone number is in Washington, DC.  When an investigator called the number, the person who answered it said that it wasn't Khan's number, but he refused to say whose number it was.  When the investigator did what news reporters are supposed to do, he found that the number was for a Muslim organization with suspicious connections.
     Here and here are two links that strongly indicate Khizr M. Khan's close ties to both Islamic terrorism and the Clinton Foundation.
     I used to have doubts about Trump's sincerity; I wondered if it were all a hoax or even a Trojan horse for Hillary, but not any more.  The way the corporate shills are now in panic mode and practically wearing tinfoil hats when they read the "news" from their teleprompters tells me that Donald Trump is the real deal.  
     If you want a clue as to how popular Trump really is (and we can no longer trust polls), take a look at Google Trends.  Google Trends measures how many Internet searches there are for almost any topic.  Internet interest is not the same thing as voter support, but lack of interest shows lack of support.  In that sense, it's a rough guide.
     In 2008 and 2012 elections, I would key in the names of candidates and throw in the name of a famous movie star just to get some basis for comparison among non-political people (many of whom vote, though many others are too young to vote).  In the past, Paris Hilton generated more interest than any candidate. 
     

This year, it's different.  Limiting searches to the United States during the past 30 days, the charts show that Trump and Clinton generate more interest than Beyonce, Matt Damon, or Jennifer Lawrence.  Johnson and Stein, relative to one another, generate a level of interest that is tantalizingly similar to their comparative poll numbers.  Trump is generating more interest than Harry Potter; but, as of August 4, Harry Potter was generating more interest than Clinton. Clinton's numbers will soon rise above the fictional wizard's, but she's clearly not holding public interest as well as Donald Trump.  

          It's no wonder she's having seizures.

  You can see why the Clinton campaign and the corporate shills are panicking.  The so-called "news media" are so desperate that they no longer care about their credibility.

June 3, 2017 ADDENDUM: The corporate shills are still in panic mode, and it's called Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

The Hillary Clinton Fairy Tale

     The official campaign biographies of Hillary Clinton read like a mashup of fairy tales, legends, and popular American memes.  The narrative flits about like Tinkerbell from one image to another.  At one moment, you think you're reading a Cinderella rip-off; in the next moment, Hillary comes off more like Joan of Arc.  Her Horatio Alger rags-to-riches story begins in one of the richest and whitest suburbs in the United States; and progresses from one symbolic gesture to another, with Hillary treading well-worn pathways and calling it "breaking down barriers" and "breaking glass ceilings."  Scandals, abysmal failures, and utter disasters are glossed over and forgotten.
     Many videos have exposed the lies for what they are.  I've decided to take a different approach.  Below are links to my three-part video in which I play along with the Clinton fairy tale.  Hillary is presented alternately as Cinderella, Joan of Arc, and other champions of female empowerment.  Somehow, though, reality keeps intruding on the fairy tale.
     In Part 1, we see the fairy tale version compared to the reality of Hillary's "average American" childhood.



     In Part 2, we take a look at her wilderness years, during which she showed how much of a champion of women and children she was (in particular, the rights of a 12-year-old girl).  Part 2 ends with the disaster of Hillarycare.


     In Part 3, we see her rise from former First Lady to various positions that had already been held by dozens of women before her: Senator, Secretary of State, and presidential candidate.

 The 2016 Democratic primaries, of course, were the grandest fairy tale of the year.


Thursday, March 17, 2016

How Trump will get the Post-March 15 Delegates He Needs to Win the GOP Nomination

     As of March 15, Donald Trump has gained 693 of the 1,237 delegates he’ll need to win the Republican presidential nomination, putting him 544 delegates short of his goal.  With only 1,041 delegates still up for grabs, he’ll have to win at least 53% of the remaining delegates before he can grab the nomination.  How can he do it?
     I poured over many opinion polls and finally settled on an on-line polling site called isidewith.com.  Isidewith.com has two major advantages: It’s fairly consistent with other polls, and—unlike other polls—it’s updated every few minutes.
     The chart you see below was actually my working paper; but I saw no reason to redo it.  If you find any errors, please let me know.  Now let’s jump into my findings.
(Click image for full-size image)
     As I said, Trump has already won 693 of the 1,237 delegates he needs to win (Source: Wikipedia), which puts him 544 delegates away from his goal. 
     First let’s look at the winner-take-all (with no ifs, ands, or buts) states.  Even in a three-way race, Trump enjoys double-digit leads in all five winner-take-all states for which polling data are available.  The only polling data of any kind I can find for South Dakota* (with 29 winner-take-all delegates) includes Democrats, Republicans, candidates, and former candidates.)  Here are the five states, with their number of delegates in parentheses: Arizona (58), Indiana (57), Nebraska (36), Montana (27), and New Jersey (51).
     Those five states will likely give Trump 229 delegates.  By the math, this puts Trump 315 delegates away from his goal.  Subtracting 229 from the 1,041 delegates still up for grabs, Trump has to get only 39% of the remaining 812 delegates. 
     Now let’s look at the states where delegates are winner-take-all if the winner gets more than 50% of the vote (otherwise, delegates are allotted proportionally.)  They are Utah (40) and Connecticut (28).  Probably no one will get 50% of the vote in Utah, so I’m calculating that Trump will get at least 16 of Utah’s 40 delegates.  He’ll take all of Connecticut’s 28 delegates.  These 44 delegates will put Trump 271 delegates away from his goal.     
     Now let’s look at the three states that will allocate delegates proportionally.  They are Oregon (28), Washington (44, but only to candidates with 20% or more of the vote), and New Mexico (24).  I calculate that Trump will win 16 delegates in Oregon, 23 in Washington, and 13 in New Mexico, for a total of 52 delegates, putting him 219 delegates away from his goal.
     Finally, setting aside Colorado’s 37 “unbound” delegates (the mention of which recalls bitter memories of the disgraceful behavior of party leaders at the 2012 (or was it 2008?) convention), let’s look at the winner-take-all (split) states.  Some are a combination of winner-take-all and proportional (WTA/).  They are Wisconsin (42), New York (95), Maryland (38), Pennsylvania (71), and West Virginia (34).  In California (172), congressional districts are winner-take-all (WTA/CD).  Together, these six states will send 452 delegates to the National GOP Convention this summer. 
     In this final category of states, it’s not possible for me to calculate just how many delegates Trump will win, but it looks promising for the Donald.  Donald Trump enjoys double-digit leads in all six winner-take-all (split) states.  Unless he (as he once suggested) stands in the middle of Times Square and shoots somebody, he’ll get at least half these 452 delegates, which should be more than he needs to get the nomination.  He’ll probably get much more than that.
     No doubt, the GOP Establishment will try to blackmail Trump into selecting Jeb Bush or other Insider as his vice presidential running mate.  To that, I have six words of caution:
“Bush family friend John Hinckley, Jr.” 

Saturday, February 13, 2016

By their own Standards, Hillary and Albright have a “Special Place in Hell”

     By now, almost everyone must be aware of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s remark, “Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” in the context that women who don’t vote for Hillary Clinton will go to an especially agonizing place in hell.  Clinton responded to Albright’s sexist remark with a rasping laugh and applause; then she reached for a drink.   When Clinton was asked later why she didn’t distance herself from that remark, Clinton gave out another rasping laugh and croaked condemnation of anyone who would disapprove of Albright’s “very light-hearted but pointed remark.” 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZCNhlmV-X0
     After a firestorm of protest over the remark, Albright apologized—well, no, she didn’t actually apologize apologize.  Actually, she kind of apologized.  No, come to think of it, she didn’t exactly do that either.  It’s more like, she repeated the remark, using different words.  She still implied that women who don’t vote for Hillary are failing in their responsibilities as women.  Check out Time magazine’s pro-Hillary valentine and see for yourself.   Do the visuals in that clip look anything like objective reporting?  Nahhhh.
http://time.com/4220323/madeleine-albright-place-in-hell-remark-apology/ 
     How do Albright and Clinton fare by their own standard?  Not very well.  By their own standards, there’s a special place in hell for Clinton and Albright.
      In 1995, a study by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization found that over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died under then-President Clinton’s policy of economic sanctions.  In 1976, CBS interviewer Lesley Stahl asked then-UN Ambassador Albright about it, and Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think that the price is worth it.” 
     When you get into numbers as high as 500,000, the emotional impact of that many deaths doesn’t sink in.  Okay, try to imagine how you’d feel about a school bus loaded with 75 first graders running off a cliff and killing every child on board.  Now try to imagine that happening to 6,667 school buses, each loaded with 75 first graders.  If that many school buses were lined up in Massachusetts, the buses would stretch the entire 50 miles from Massachusetts’s northern border (New Hampshire) to its southern border (Connecticut).
     In the entire state of Arkansas, there are an estimated 192,814 children under 5 years old.  (link)  Madeleine Albright justified killing 2.6 times that many—and counting, until January 20, 2001.  Roughly half the children Albright justified killing were girls, and most of them had mothers.  To further then-President Clinton’s political power goals, Madeleine Albright said that Clinton’s mass pedocide was “worth it.”  By Albright’s own standards, she has a special place in hell for not helping women.
     What about Hillary Clinton?  How well does she support women?
     In 1991, when Anita Hill accused Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas of telling two off-color jokes her presence, Hillary Clinton and a political lawyer named Gloria Allred said that Hill, as a woman, had “a right to be believed.”  (Never mind the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.)  On this basis, they unsuccessfully tried to deny Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court.
     Also in 1991, when Juanita Broaddrick accused presidential candidate Bill Clinton of rape, Kathleen Willey accused him of sexual assault, and Paula Jones accused him of exposing his privates to her, Hillary Clinton (in Willey’s words) “wrote the book on terrorizing women." (link)   The Clinton Administration, with Hillary as enabler-in-chief, attacked Bill Clinton’s victims as “bimbos.” 
     Broaddrick was audited by the Internal Revenue Service—a favorite tool of terrorism by the powers-that-be—and charges were tossed out of court because the only two witnesses to the crime (Broaddrick and Clinton) disagreed on what had happened.  On November 29, 1993, the very day that Willey publicly accused Clinton, Willey’s husband was shot to death.  Investigators ruled it a suicide.  Paula Jones eventually accepted an $850,000 out-of-court settlement from Bill Clinton.
     Hillary Clinton’s war on women didn’t stop or start there.  Recently, an audiotaped interview surface, in which Clinton bragged and laughed about a mid-1980’s case in which she managed to free a rapist pedophile whom she knew was guilty.    Here’s the audio tape:

     Former prosecutor and Judge Jeanine Pirro showed court documents revealing that Clinton falsified evidence against the 12-year-old victim of her client—and she laughed about it.  The girl was so badly injured in the rape that she was in a coma for several days; and she can never have children.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=680oj8VC61M  Yes, Hillary did “believe the accuser” in this case, but she tormented the girl just the same, and she even laughed about it.

     Women's rights involve more than "women's issues;" they involve human rights.  As such, Clinton's treatment of the grieving mothers and widows of Benghazi is an issue here.

    Within 24 hours of the murder of four Americans at Benghazi, Clinton had emailed her daughter Chelsea and to the Egyptian prime minister, telling them the facts of how four Americans had died.  At the casket ceremony, however, Hillary Clinton lied to the mothers and widows about how their sons and husbands had died.  She also went on worldwide television and repeated the lie.  She later denied that she had ever said what she was clearly on record as having said.  When a reporter said to her that either she or the grieving mothers and widows had lied, Clinton said, "It wasn't me," callously accusing the women of lying.

     If there’s a “special place in hell for women who don’t help” other women, for whom should women vote?  Hillary Clinton or someone—whether male or female—who actually cares about people?
     When you get right down to it, Hillary Clinton can not honestly claim that her election to the presidency would "empower women," either.  Her only two claims to the presidency are the X chromosome she received from her father and the name recognition she received from her husband.

Friday, January 29, 2016

So, You Think You’ve Broken the Matrix….Are you Sure?

     Thanks to the Internet and alternative news sites, we’ve seen the absurdity of believing that ordinary office fires could cause skyscrapers to collapse like three (including Building 7) houses of cards.  Fetzer and many others of his ilk post videos, and they tell us what we see in the videos.  The prearranged conclusion is that Insiders, most of whom were American citizens, and some of whom were “Muslims,” used thermite to bring down the buildings in “classic implosions.”  They point out other things to us, and we’ve learned to listen to them instead of the corporate press-titutes.
     What else have we learned from the alternative media?  For one, we learned that government officials and the press-titutes collude to slant the news after events have occurred.
     Welcome to the Outer Matrix.  That’s the buffer zone created for people who have woken up to the fact that they’re living in the Matrix and are trying to get out.  The Matrix created this buffer zone, and they’ve planted Judas goats in the alternative media to keep people from finding the exit.  Regardless of whether you’ve taken the blue pill or the red one, you’re still in one of two versions of the Matrix.  

     Think of Plato’s Parable of the Cave.  Prisoners chained in a cave see shadowy figures on a wall and think they’re seeing the real world.  At some point, one of the prisoners wriggles in his chains until he’s able to turn his head.  He then discovers that puppet masters are the reality and that the shadows on the wall are no more than illusions that the puppet masters want him to see.  At that point, he thinks he has discovered what the world is really like.  He fails to realize that the cave itself had been created by the puppet masters, and that a greater reality exists outside the cave.  His vision is still limited to what the puppet masters are willing to concede to skeptics.
     Alex Jones, a self-proclaimed alternative media leader, is a case in point.  Alex Jones’s parent company is Time-Warner, which is also the parent company of CNN, which Jones often criticizes.  Former CIA intern Anderson Cooper, a top shill for CNN, is one of Jones’s favorite targets.  Do you really believe that a shill for Time-Warner is going to make a habit of saying things that are damaging to other Time-Warner shills?  
     Jones never tires of telling about Cooper’s and CNN’s use of green-screen technology to trick viewers into thinking that Cooper was interviewing someone in front of a church in Newtown, Connecticut, when in fact Cooper was in a television studio, probably in New York.  He also excitedly tells his viewers that CNN was using crisis actors posing as witnesses or survivors of (supposedly) horrific events such as the one at Sandy Hook.  Both those revelations were all over the Internet before Jones said anything about them, and neither of them are fatal to the corporate media’s claim that the Sandy Hook shooting really happened.
     Only in the past year or so have Alex Jones and other Judas goats finally conceded what the rest of us have known for over two years: that the Sandy Hook shooting never happened.  (The red pills that Alex Jones dispenses are just placebos.) 
     For many of us, Sandy Hook was a watershed event.  We’d known (as the fake alternative media talking heads are willing to admit) that the corporate media lies to slant news events after they’ve happened.  Now we know what the fake alternative media don’t tell us until it can no longer be denied: that the corporate media acts with prior knowledge, slanting people’s perceptions of real or fabricated events even as they’re taking place. 
     Two more of Jones’s big issues are the Bilderberg group and alleged activities at Bohemian grove.  Even the sleepiest person in the Matrix already knows that businessmen and politicians cultivate relationships with each other—How can anyone expect them to do otherwise?—but Jones habitually shows up outside Bilderberg meeting sites, bullhorn in hand, making a spectacle of himself.  Despite the claim that the giant owl statue at Bohemian Grove represents the god Moloch, Jones proves only that groups of Republicans go to Bohemian Grove and act like drunken frat boys.  Jones isn’t touching anybody’s third rail; everything that he and other corporate “alternative” media shills say is well within limits of the Matrix’s buffer zone.  Jones and others like him serve as fire breaks to keep fires of protest contained.
     When Jim Fetzer appeared on the Alex Jones show, and they agreed that Donald Trump is “the real deal,” it raised my doubts about Donald Trump.  In the video above are some of the highlights of an Alex Jones interview with Donald Trump. 
  As Albert Pike (33rd Degree Mason) said, “Whenever the people need a hero, we shall supply him.”
     If you want to know what happens when a researcher really touches a third rail, take a look at Dr. Judy Wood and Rebekah Roth.  Those two women have uncovered things that are truly outside the Matrix.  They’ve gotten a little too close to the truth to suit the puppet masters.  As a result, characters such as Jim Fetzer and his guests have come at them with sharpened claws.
      I don’t know if you’ve ever witnessed a building implosion.  I stood less than a block from the Wade Hampton Hotel when it came down in 1985.  I find myself comparing what I saw that day with what I see today on 9/11 videos.
     When the World Trade Center came down, the clouds of dust should not have been as thick, as heavy, or widespread as the ones we saw.  There should have been much more rubble than we saw.  Since metal vehicles blocks from the site were burned, the papers scattered all over the streets should also have been burned; they weren’t even singed.  Thermite could have reduced the buildings to rubble, but it could not have turned them to dust, nor could it have caused a steel tower to vanish like smoke.  

     Dr. Judy Wood’s scientific explanation for these anomalies is beyond my understanding, and possibly yours, but she makes one thing clear: We may not know what reduced the buildings to thick clouds of dust, but we know what it wasn’t.  It wasn’t planes, and it wasn’t thermite.  For stating the obvious, trolls in the 9/11 “Truth” movement have viciously attacked Doctor Wood. 
         Rebekah Roth claims to be a former airline stewardess and, judging from her grasp of how airline stewardesses operate, she almost certainly is.  In her radio interviews and in her books Methodical Illusion and Methodical Deception, she points to things that the hijacked 9/11 stewardesses said that suggest (to a stewardess) that the planes were not in the air when the phone calls were made; that they were in a hangar somewhere.  She also explores the question of where the hangar was located. 
     This claim helps to answer many of the unanswered questions of 9/11, the foremost of which is, “If no planes were used on 9/11, what happened to the planes?”  As expected, the claws were sharpened and Rebekah Roth is attacked on whether she wears a wig, whether she wears glasses to look more intelligent, whether men are fooled by her because (supposedly) she’s “pretty,” whether Rebekah Roth is her real name, and whether we should believe a novelist.  In short, she’s attacked for everything but her airline experience, her facts, and her reasoning.  By providing a both a rationale and evidence for the no-planes theory, she has touched a third rail that shows she has breached the Matrix.
      In addition to accusing the Bush Administration of complicity in 9/11, Roth also accused the Israeli Mossad.  By mentioning the Israeli regime, Rebekah Roth had touched another third rail and got burned for it.  Typically, Matrix shills pretend that she hasn’t said anything about Bush Administration complicity, and they accuse her of saying that “the Jews” were solely responsible, as if religion had anything to do with it. When her critics deliberately confuse an Israeli spy organization with the Law of Moses, they show their true colors.  The Israeli regime and their media lackeys use Jews as human shields.
     There’s much more I could say about controlled opposition and how the puppet masters give skeptics just enough of the truth to steer them away from learning “too much.”  I’m not saying that we should trust the likes of Roth and Wood instead of Jones and Fetzer—or that you should trust me, for that matter.  Instead, each of us should trust himself or herself.  I’m also saying that we should be aware that, amid the honest researchers and reporters in the legitimate alternative media, there are Judas goats in false alternative media out there and we should beware of them.  As Agent Scully said, "The truth is also out there, but so are lies."
      By way of providing you with tools to aid you in your search for truth, here’s a crash course for you:


Monday, January 11, 2016

Gun Control Legislation? Disarm Congress before Disarming Citizens!


     If the American people were truly safer without guns, as Obama and many members of Congress tell us, why do Obama and congressmen feel the need to hide behind swarms of armed guards?  Why don't they follow their own advice and dial 911 when trouble strikes?
     Common sense tells us that they know, as we know, that dialing 911 sometimes doesn't get help fast enough to stay alive.  What do you do while waiting for the police arrive, assuming that they may arrive?  Turn on your laptop, start a Facebook group called "Down with Murderers," and see how many "likes" you get?  
     We’ve seen it all before, haven’t we?  In 1964, when the Civil Rights Act made racial discrimination in hiring illegal, the bill was touted as good for the American people.  Typically, the bill was written in such a way that it exempted Congress and the President from the provisions of the bill.  In 2010, when Congress signed the deceptively misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it was also touted as good for the American people.  As usual, Congress and the teleprompter-reader-in-chief were exempted from the bill’s requirements.
     Federal laws and regulations display the same double standards in many other areas.  To give one example, when a military veteran applies for Social Security, the federal government will take nothing less than an original hard copy of the veteran's record, and it has to be certified by government bureaucrats who have physically seen and held the paper, photocopied it, and stamped it as a “true copy.”  When Barry Soetoro was running for teleprompter-reader-in-chief in 2008, all he had to do was produce a computer-generated image resembling a birth certificate, which any amateur could have produced on Photoshop in just a few minutes.  In fact, Barry's CGI'd certificate had so many flaws in it that it probably was produced by an amateur in a few minutes.  (Link) 
     Gun control is no exception to the rule that Washington’s minions create for themselves exceptions to rules.  Congressional sock puppets and the teleprompter-reader-in-chief are protected by swarms of well-armed men in uniform and in plainclothes, even as the usual suspects are arguing that the American people would be much safer from gun violence if they—that is, the American people—had no means of self-defense.  The fly in the buttermilk is that American gun owners are hard to convince. 
     I propose that we take a lesson from the world of business and economics.  Under a scheme called Free Economic Zones, some businesses can have higher taxes and more government regulation while businesses in certain zoned places can have lower taxes and less government regulation.
     I propose that we try a similar scheme for the issue of gun control.  (By the way, the term gun control, strictly speaking, is a misnomer.  The issue has never been whether there should be gun control but who should control the guns.  In my proposal below, I’m strongly pro-gun control in that I believe that guns should be controlled by as many non-governmental citizens as possible.)  Here is my proposal:
     With few exceptions, no one holding a federal job will be allowed the protection of firearms.  That includes, but is not limited to, congressmen, Presidents (or whoever is filling that capacity at the time), Secret Service agents, the FBI, the CIA, TSA petty thieves and perverts, DHS, FEMA, White House guards, and government regulators.  The sole exceptions to the requirements of this law will be active-duty military personnel during duty hours.  Whenever a military serviceman leaves the base or is otherwise off-duty, he must leave his firearm in the base armory, except when he is in the war zone of a lawfully declared war.  It will be illegal for a federal jobholder to enter a dwelling or other place that has a firearm; the consequences of this provision will apply both to the federal jobholder and to the homeowner who allows him/her to enter.  Anyone violating this law will face a mandatory five years in prison.  The provisions of this law will also apply to anyone who has contracted to work on behalf of the federal government.
     Constitutionally authorized bearers of weapons (such as city policemen) will, however, be allowed to respond to 911 calls from a federal employee in the event of an emergency.  Just in case the police don’t respond fast enough to save the federal employee’s life, pizza delivery personnel may be deputized and armed.  Then, at least, help is guaranteed to arrive in less than fifteen minutes, and they can celebrate their rescue by having a pizza.
     The goal of this proposed law is to make places occupied by federal employees as safe as other gun-free zones, such as schools, churches, and movie theaters.
     People who are slow to catch on might argue that the President and members of Congress, for example, need to be surrounded with armed men as a means of protection against people who would wish to harm them.  Well, excuse me, but that’s the same excuse that gun owners give for wanting to have guns.  Obama, Pelosi, and others of their ilk shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that lame excuse.    
     Besides, haven’t you heard the ancient Roman proverb, “The love of the people is the king’s protection”?  The ancient Romans had the idea that, if the love of the people wasn’t protection enough, the king didn’t deserve to live.
     One of the founding principles of the American Republic is that the government should fear the people—not the other way around.  The characters who demand firearms protection for themselves and for nobody else are as hypocritical as an undertaker trying to look sad at a million-dollar funeral.
     But wait a minute.  How does this argument square with the assassinations of President Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King?  Very well, thank you.  If the CIA, the FBI, and LBJ had not had access to firearms, those three assassinations probably would not have happened.
     Yeah, let’s try it—the sooner the better.  As soon as the American people see how safe federal employees have become by living in gun-free zones, they won’t be able to get rid of their guns fast enough.  During the 2008 presidential election, Obama famously sneered at the American people for “clinging to their guns and religion.”  (Link)    
     Let’s see if Mr. Obama was right—or if America really was built on God, guns, and guts.