Browsing All Posts By truthhunter

Why All Your Issues with the Election Don’t Matter

imageA lot has been said about the 2016 US Presidential election. Some have called it low brow and vicious, yet they don’t remember the 1800 election when Thomas Jefferson called John Adams a hermaphrodite, and Adams called Jefferson “the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”.

Why yes, negative campaigning is a mainstay in American politics.

So if we get past the name calling, and silly accusations, there are still some major policy issues that everyone seems to care about. But do those really matter? Are they just red herrings? A lot has been said about Trumps plan to build a wall on the southern US boarder, but Hillary has long supported the same thing. Many people say that Hillary supports gay marriage, but Trump was very supportive of his friends same sex marriage in 2005. But what about the “major issues”?

If you ask a democrat what they don’t like about the republican platform, 2 things tend to come up more then anything.

First, democrats like to call republicans war mongers. After all, George W Bush started the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. According to the Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the US had troops deployed in 60 countries when Bush left office. That sure sounds like those republicans are war mongers, doesn’t it?

Well the truth is, 8 years after Bush left office, we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And according to SOCOM, we now have troops deployed in 135 countries (that is nearly 70% of all the countries on the planet). The democrats don’t seem to be any less of war mongers.

The second policy issue most democrats raise against the republicans is abortion. The republicans want to ban abortion.

Let’s be serious about this one. Yes, many republicans like to get on their high horse and claim that they are opposed to abortion, but let’s be serious, most abortions are being done by low income people. Not the type of people the political elite are to supportive of reproducing anyway.  Even republican nominee Donald Trump has said that even though he is personally against abortion, it is all about choice and you can’t take that choice away from a woman.

So realistically, all republicans will ever do with regards to abortion is limit public funds going toward it. And if that happens, liberal charities will fill in the missing funds. Nothing will change.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are tightening their grips on the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations.Of course, republicans have their gripes about democrats. You can’t talk to a republican without them telling you how the democrats want to raise taxes. Although there is some merit to this (depending on your income), the truth is, congress will always fight over taxes, and sometimes some peoples taxes will go up and others down, and other times other peoples taxes will go up and other peoples will go down. The president has less to do with this then the other branches of government.

The second thing any republican will bring up is gun control. This is a hot button political issue for a few reasons. The first reason is location. most urban areas are more liberal. They also have larger police forces, faster police response times, high crime and less wild life. These tend to make liberal people see guns as something only criminals have.

Rural areas tend to have more conservative people. They also have less police presence, slower police response times, less crime, and more wild life. These tend to make the conservative people living there want to be armed.

But will democrats try to “take our guns”? It is true that democrats want to push gun restrictions, but they will never ban firearms. The 2 main reasons why they can not are the power of pro weapon groups, and the needs of the government. Pro weapon groups, like the NRA, are extremely well funded by the millions of Americans who own weapons (I, as well as almost everyone I know, am an NRA member).

The governments needs tend to be an often overlooked player in the gun control issue. Many people do not know that television was first created as a way to offset the cost of cathode ray tubes used in the militaries radar. Also, petroleum based plastics were first used in nuclear weapons. To bring manufacturing costs down for these items, the government needed a way to increase production drastically. They did this by creating ways for everyday Americans to need those products. If you think the popularity of todays AR-15 rifles has nothing to do with the governments need to lower prices by mass producing those parts, you are fooling yourselves. At most, the government will only allow restrictions on some components. A democrat in office will never ban AR-15’s but may ban 30 round magazines for AR-15’s. However, this is a useless gesture. Advances in 3d printing make banning a plastic high capacity magazine unenforceable.

So if these issues are nothing but a red herring, what is the election really about? Well usually, nothing. The same thing happens no matter what party is in charge. Obama didn’t even close down Guantanamo Bay.

However, maybe this time, someone who isn’t part of that political elite, that government machine that tries to fool us with partisan politics, has the nomination of one of our 2 parties. Maybe this time someone can be elected that can take the country back for the rest of us.

But they wouldn’t let that happen… would they?

READ MORE +

Unaware and Compliant: 5 Revelations to start a Revolution this week

hillary-clinton-old-hag-8I have often said that our current education system in the United States is designed not to educate, but to make subservient workers. It now seems that this ideology goes much deeper then the education system. In a recently leaked email from Bill Ivey to John Podesta (Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign), Ivey states “we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.”

It seems like it is far more entrenched then just the policy of the education system to make an American public that is just smart enough to do their jobs, and just ignorant enough to accept the “facts” the mainstream media feeds them. The political elite have been pushing a new age serfdom through a combination of the education system, news media and entertainment conglomerates. This alone should be enough to incite a revolution.

But the internet is supposed to help us all become more educated, right? I mean, we have access to the sum of all human knowledge at our fingertips. We have fact checker websites.

Well another leaked email from Politico reporter (and “fact checker”) Glenn Thrush shows that he had sent a story to the Hillary campaign to have it approved before publishing… so much for “unbiased”. It seems even our “Fact Checkers” are pushing the agenda of the political elite.

fb_clinton_docFor a long time, the term “Shadow Government” has been firmly seated in the world of conspiracy theories. But another recently released document from the FBI seems to verify the existence of said Shadow Government. (the page in question can be found here on page 56, or a copy is on the right) The document discusses a group that it calls “The 7th Floor Group, or The Shadow Government” that has been reviewing all FOIA requests regarding the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illegal use of a private email server.

Some have already begun to speculate that the “7th Floor Group” may be a reference to George Soros owned Open Society Foundation located in London on the 7th floor of Milbank Tower.

*Also of note, on page 26 of the same document, the FBI mentions that Undersecretary of State, Patrick Kennedy, “pressured them to change some of the emails on Hillary’s private server from classified to unclassified in exchange for allowing the FBI to place agents in countries where they are presently forbidden. This seems illegal to me.

Recently, 2 undercover videos were released by projectveritasaction.com. These videos show Democratic activists claiming to be working for the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and the DNC. The also discuss how to incite Trump supporters on camera to make them look bad, and how to commit voter fraud. Whether these people are actually taking their marching orders from the DNC or Clinton campaign is unknown, but the mere fact that they are claiming to do what they are claiming to do… that should be enough to make each of us take a second look at the current election cycle.

READ MORE +

America’s Elitist Problem, And Why We Can’t See It

For the past 20 years, I have been trying to explain to everyone I can that America has an elitist problem.

I understand why people don’t get it. It is easier to blame things on racism. That way it isn’t “my problem”. With racism, we can sit back happily and say “it is horrible what those people are doing to those other people”, but with elitism, it becomes “what those people are doing to us”. We sleep better at night when we think someone else is the victim, someone else is being taken advantage of, someone else is being screwed.

political-elite-run-americaAnd sometimes, blaming racism when the culprit is elitism, turns us into elitists as well. We all like to feel superior to someone else. We like to feel like we are better then those ignorant racists that are taking advantage of those poor minorities… You see, elitism let’s us feel superior to both groups. It’s like racism on steroids.

A few weeks ago when Hillary Clinton said that all white people were racist, I thought that this was proof that she was an elitist. You see, an elitist can’t accept their own character flaws. So instead, they project them on to everybody. “If I am racist, that is only because I can’t help it because everybody is racist… It’s not my fault”.

Of course, all the people who have fallen into the elitism rhetoric thinks she means everybody else.

I find that the amazing part of the elitist mentality. You have so many average Americans who have fallen for the rhetoric. They think they are better then everyday Americans. They are better then minorities. They are better then religious people. They are better then less educated people. Elitists find all sorts of ways to think that they are better then you.

So when emails were leaked that show Hillary’s campaign manager saying “I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans,” Is it a surprise that her supporters don’t care? Of course not. They think she was talking about someone else. Hillary’s supporters believe that “everyday Americans” are those people at the Trump rally, or those black folk on the poor side of town, or the immigrant that cleans my house. “I am better then average Americans” thinks Hillary supporters. But they are not.

When Hillary said, in a speech to the National Multifamily Housing Council “if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”, She is saying that it is necessary to lie (even to her supporters) about what her intentions are, because people are to stupid to understand.

Hillary Clinton thinks that all Americans are stupid, and just need to do what she thinks is right.

Of course this isn’t just a “democrat” problem. Both sides of the aisle have been infiltrated by this elitist ruling class. Whether it is the Clinton’s, the Bush’s or some other puppet like the Obama’s. Our country has been ruled by a political elite for almost 30 years. They lie to us about policy, and have their propaganda wing (the mainstream media) push the agenda. Average American’s get screwed, and blame the other party.

emailThat is why, this year, I am voting for the guy that neither part likes. Donald Trump may be an asshole. He may not be a great president. But he isn’t another one of the same political elite that have been screwing us for the last 30 years. And hell, we lived through 8 years of Bush, and 8 years of Obama… we can make it through 4 years of Trump.

Since publishing this article a couple days ago, I saw an email exchange in the wikileaks dump between Hillary campaign manager Podesta and former head of the National Endowment for the Arts Bill Ivey. In the email (that you can see on the right), Ivey says: “we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.”. This makes me sick. These people are admitting that they have been conspiring to make you and I mindless fools that follow orders. I have been claiming this for years, but most people think I am a “conspiracy nut”. Yet here it is.
Hillary has called half of Trump supporters “deplorable”, she has called Bernie supporters “basement dwellers”, and she has called the majority of the left a “bucket of losers”. I think it is clear that Hillary is an elitist who hates everyday Americans. I do not know how anyone could think that she is fit to represent us if she hates us… But then again, they seem to have done a good job keeping most Americans “unaware”…

READ MORE +

1,000 Dead in Haiti: It’s the Clinton’s Fault

Last week, our nation was glued to the 24 hour news cycle of Hurricane Matthew coverage. If you live in America’s South East (like I do), the dangers that storm presented were all to real. Much of South Florida was spared the devastation of the storm, but places like Jacksonville Florida saw some catastrophic damage. However, the loss of life in America was minimal.

The same can not be said for Haiti. The poorest country in the America’s, Haiti lost over 1,000 people in the hurricane. The lack of “hurricane proof” buildings, and the destitute living conditions of many of Haiti’s 10 million population were major factors in the devastation the island nation suffered. But why?

6 years ago, in 2010, Southern Haiti was struck by a massive 7.0 earthquake. Death tolls from the quake range from 100,000 to 316,000 (depending on who you ask). An estimated 3 million people were effected by the quake with 250,000 residences and 30,000 commercial buildings collapsing in the quake. In 2015, an estimated 64,680 Haitian people were still displaced.

Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation were appointed by the UN to supervise relief efforts in Haiti. Overall, some reports say, 18 Billion dollars of relief was donated to Haiti from around the world. So why were so many Haitians still living in makeshift shacks when 145 mile an hour winds from Hurricane Matthew struck southern Haiti 6 years later? Why is so much of Haiti still in ruins from an earthquake that happened 6 years ago?

An investigation in 2015 into the Haitian aid showed that of 130,000 homes claimed to have been built in the “reconstruction” on 6 had actually been built. $500 million dollars that was donated to aid Haiti had simply disappeared.

You can say the Clintons made mistakes in the Haiti re-contruction efforts. You can say the Clintons took advantage of the situation. You can say the Clintons fleeced the Haitian people. What you can’t say it it isn’t their fault. 1,000 Haitians are dead today because the world trusted the Clinton’s to manage the rebuilding of that nation, and they failed.

The poorest nation in the western hemisphere was fleeced by the Clinton family. They used the disaster to launder money, and enrich their friends.

Whether it is Hillary’s Brother, Tony Rodham, becoming a board member of a gold mine in Haiti, Unsavory dealings by Bill Clinton crony (and Clinton contributor) Denis O’Brian (owner of Digicel Telecom, and chairman of the Clinton Global Initiative’s Haiti Action Network), Or Hillary’s work to keep the minimum wage in Haiti at around 30 cents (yes that is right) per hour (even partisan “fact checkers” snopes and politifact concede that that is “mostly true”.) One thing is for certain, If you are from Haiti, the Clinton’s are no friend of yours.

 

 

 

READ MORE +

Science Based Atheism is an Oppressive Religion

I grew up in a rather liberal family. I was baptized Lutheran when I was an infant. I went to Baptist pre-school, and I spent a couple years in a Catholic elementary school. I became a Pagan in High School, and I studied all the religions I could find after that. I soon became an “atheist”, but not just any old non-believer, I believed in science.

My biggest gripe with religion was the way it seemed to want to force it’s beliefs on others. The whole idea of “I’m right, and You are wrong.” never set well with me. It seems oppressive. You see, “I’m right, and You’re wrong” is almost always followed by “You need to do what I say because I am right”. Now, I realize that I am not always right, so forcing someone else to do what I think is right can potentially lead us both to what is wrong.

lemaitre“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” ? Werner Heisenberg (theoretical physicist and one of the key pioneers of quantum mechanics.)

As I delved deeper into science, my “faith” in scientific atheism began to waiver. Science explains a lot of things. But the explanations are alway in the “how” and not the “why”.

Simple math declares that nothing multiplied by anything is still nothing, so we must conclude that something was required in order for anything to exist.

the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy shows that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed. That means that every atom in you, every atom around you, has been here since the beginning of time.

There is a philosophical theory called “Efficient Cause” that roughly states: There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.

Truly, God is at the bottom of the Glass.

Science based Atheism has yet to reach the bottom of the glass. Yet with all the server of religion, it wants to force you to follow it’s unfinished beliefs. And let us leave no room for doubt, Science based Atheism is a belief.

Many people have heard the phrase “I think, therefore I am”. Yet most people are unaware of the origins of this saying. This saying is the answer to the question “Prove anything exists”. The answer is that the only thing that you can prove exists is your own consciousness. I think, therefore I am. Everything else is just a belief.

You believe that you are reading this on a device of some sort (computer, smartphone, tablet, whatever). But how do you read? Light bounces off of an object into your eyes. receptors in your eyes translate that information into electrical impulses that are sent through your nervous system to your brain. Your brain then interprets those signals to create an image in your mind that you believe is what is in front of your eyes. But it might not be.

This is how all of your senses work. When you touch something, nerves in your skin sends signals to your brain that it then interprets. When you smell something, when you hear something, it is all an interpretation your brain has made from electrical signals being fed to it.

You could be a brain in a lab being fed electrical signals made to simulate actual nerve signals. You have no way of knowing for sure.

Everything is a belief.

220px-fa-18_hornet_breaking_sound_barrier_7_july_1999_-_filteredMany scientists and mathematicians have stated that it is not only possible, but probable that we are living in a computer simulation. They say that it is statistically unlikely that we are the one real universe that is about to become technologically advanced enough to create a simulation of the universe as opposed to one of the millions of simulated universes that anyone with that technology would have made.

If we are a simulation, then wouldn’t the creatures in charge of the simulation be “God”?

The simple truth is that we don’t know. We do not know with 100% accuracy that anything is real. As a result, everything we think we know is just a belief. Science based Atheism is a belief no different then Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other religion. It is a system of thought that someone believes to be true.

Yet more and more, these science based atheists want to force their beliefs on the rest of society. They want to create laws to promote their beliefs, they want to force their beliefs to be the only ones taught at schools. They want to do everything they blame religions for doing.

By it’s very nature, science is “the best possible guess using the information available”. New information can change the conclusion (this is how science works). Before the 1900’s scientists believed that traveling over 60 miles per hour would collapse your lungs and you would die. They changed their mind when it was proven false. Before 1950, scientists believed the speed of sound was an impenetrable barrier that was physically impossible to go faster then. They were wrong again. Up until just recently, scientists believed that the speed of light was a constant. Now we have seen light traveling at different speeds.

If science is so fluid, it is insane to say that science must be accepted as fact. It is the very disbelief of science “facts” that push science forward.

Science based Atheists don’t see that they are just another religion trying to forcefully convert the population. They are oppressors, and zealots who believe that anyone with a different idea is wrong. They are what they hate.

READ MORE +

The Truth Behind the 2016 US Presidential Election

hillaryThere is no such thing as Republican or Democrat. It is an illusion to make us little people think we have some control. But behind the scenes, both parties are run by the same people. You can call them whatever you want, Globalists, Elites, Illuminati, it doesn’t make much difference. The truth is they are in control, and we are not.

Every 4 years, they pick 2 people that will both do their agenda, and they let us decide between them. There is never really a difference. If you think there is, you are fooling yourself. Just look at our past few presidents. George Bush was supposed to be a conservative, or a Republican. They stand for small government, yet he made it bigger. They stand for less government spending, yet he spent more. They stand for less government involvement in foreign wars, yet he started a few. Then came Barack Obama. He is supposed to be a Liberal, aka a Democrat. He told us he would stop former president Bush’s wars, yet he started more. He told us he would roll back Bushes “surveillance state” yet he expanded it. He doubled Bush’s spending, and he divided the country.

So what makes Republican or Democrat? Gay rights? Less then 2% of the population is gay, so that is really a non issue. Minimum wage? 4.3% of the population earns at (or below) the minimum wage, so that is a non issue also. Student loan debt? 40% of student loan recipients aren’t making payments anyway, so that isn’t much of an issue. What about Islamic rights? Less then 1% of the population of the USA is Muslim, so this isn’t a real issue either.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump arrives at a fundraising event at a golf course in the Bronx borough of New York, Monday, July 6, 2015. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)So is it Abortion and Gun Control? Those are really the two biggest red herrings in politics. No Republican will ever be able to ban abortions, and no Democrat will ever be able to ban guns. They don’t even try. When the so called “abortion pill” (RU-486) was approved by the FDA, someone asked (then) president Bush if he would try to overturn the ruling. His reply was “I don’t think a president can do that”.

President Obama’s “attempts” at gun control have done nothing but increase gun sales. His most recent attempt was to make people on the “no fly list” ineligible to buy a gun. This wasn’t an attempt at gun control as much as it was an attempt to eliminate the “no fly list”. Obama had already tried to eliminate the “no fly list” early in his presidency by claiming it had no due process and was therefore unconstitutional. The courts said that use of a private service (commercial aircraft travel) was not a right, and therefore no rights were being taken away by the “no fly list”. To use the “no fly list” as a way to take away a persons right to bear arms would therefore make the “no fly list” unconstitutional and force it to be eliminated.

So as you can see,

Democrats like to say that Republicans want to eliminate government regulation and let big business run amok. Yet it was (former) President Bill Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall and let big business run amok and destroy the economy.

There is a saying that the left wing, and the right wing belong to the same bird. This is the truth most people don’t want to acknowledge. This is also why the 2016 election is becoming so interesting.

ORLANDO, FL - NOVEMBER 13:  Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during the Sunshine Summit conference being held at the Rosen Shingle Creek on November 13, 2015 in Orlando, Florida.  The summit brought Republican presidential candidates in front of the Republican voters.  (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)The 2016 presidential election started like many others. The people in charge put up their choices, and we were supposed to choose between them. On the Republican side, they had Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Marco Rubio, and Mike Huckabee. You also had people outside the inner circle that had enough money or support to throw their hats in the ring like Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and Donald Trump.

The Democrats didn’t really give anyone much of a choice. They had Hillary Clinton, and Martin O’Malley. They also had the outsider candidate Bernie Sanders.

Of course, the plan for both parties was to eliminate the outsiders, and let us “choose” between which of their candidates we wanted. The Republicans quickly eliminated Rand Paul portraying him as a nut job like his father. Ben Carson was comically portrayed as an idiot even though he is a successful brain surgeon with multiple Phd’s. Carly Fiorina was likely bought out by being given an opportunity to be vice president under a Ted Cruz campaign.

But Donald Trump surged. It seemed the conservatives were growing weary of the candidates they people in charge kept feeding them. No matter what the mainstream media, or the people in charge did, Donald Trump continued to surge.

On the Democrat side, things were much the same. O’mallet was just there to give the voters the illusion of choice. Or maybe he was there as a back up plan in case Hillary actually got indicted. Either way, it was clear that the people in charge viewed Bernie Sanders as a weirdo fringe candidate. He was the left’s version of Rand Paul. He shouldn’t be an issue.

But he was. Much like on the Republican side, the Democrats were also tired of having their candidate picked for them. They knew Hillary Clinton was no different then Bill Clinton, Barack Obama or even George Bush. They all worked for the same people.

Americans wanted to put someone new in charge. And picking a different party didn’t change who was really in charge. The people needed to choose candidates that weren’t chosen for them.

bernie-sandersThe Republican voters nominated Donald Trump. This blindsided the people in charge. However, it wasn’t that big of a deal, because they still had Hillary Clinton. They just needed to make sure she was the nominee for the Democrats. After all, the people in power need at least one of the candidates (the one that wins) to be theirs if they hope to remain in power. So the people in charge did everything they could to eliminate Bernie Sanders. They paid people to protest Trump rallies to make it look like Sanders supporters were violent thugs. They paid people to infiltrate Sanders relies and cause problems to make Sanders supporters look like undisciplined kids. They portrayed Sanders supporters as lazy people looking for a free ride. And when all of that didn’t work, they resorted to flat out election fraud and just stole the nomination.

So now we have the candidate that the people in charge want, and we have the candidate that is against them.

Of course the people in charge want to make it look like we have a stable politician, and a crazy “outsider” running. And they are already looking for a back up plan. There has been rumors of other “establishment” (ie people in charge) conservative candidates making an independent run for the white house. This seems like it will do little for the person running and only serve to divide the conservative vote between the people who are really fed up with the “establishment” and the people who believe all the propaganda the mainstream media is pushing. Of course, that will tilt the election in favor of the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton.

I find it interesting to note that most “liberal” people that I know have always complained about the Republican party being involved in “Crony Capitalism”, the “Military Industrial Complex” , and siding with “Wall St” and the “Big Banks” over the people. These are all things that Hillary Clinton is well known for doing. Donald Trump, however, has a history of being against all of them. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have always had the exact same stance on Gay Marriage (until Hillary Clinton started running for president, then she changed her tune). Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump have both been vocally Pro-Choice. Trump has been skirting the question during this election to play to the Pro-Life voters, but he has always said that he doesn’t like abortion, but still believes in choice. in 1999, Trump said in an interview “I’m very pro-choice, I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject. But you still — I just believe in choice.”

Of course, Hillary Clinton takes her support for abortion to another level stating that an unborn child has no rights up until the moment it is born, and therefore abortion should be legal up until the child is actually born. I think even the most stern Pro-Choice support would say that this is an extremist view.

Many people find fault in Donald Trumps plan to build a wall on the southern boarder with Mexico. The media wrongly states that Trump is against immigration, when in reality, Trump has stated that it is illegal immigration that he is against. Hillary Clinton is also against illegal immigration and has actually voted in support of building a wall on the southern boarder with Mexico. The difference is Clinton wants the taxpayers (us) to pay for it, Trump wants Mexico to pay for it.

Hillary Clinton has supported most “free trade” agreements that have killed millions of US jobs. Donald Trump has consistently opposed “free trade” deals. This is another case where “free trade” is usually considered something “Republicans” support, and “Democrats” oppose. In reality, the “establishment” supports free trade, and everyone else opposes it.

So the reality of the 2016 US Presidential election is that it is currently the “establishment” vs the people. The “establishment” will do everything they can to secure their win. Hillary Clinton will most likely be elected president, and if not a third (as yet un named) choice will be. The only they will let Trump win, is if they get him to agree to their terms.

If, for some strange reason, the “establishment” fails to stop Trumps election, it will truly be a 2nd American Revolution. If Hillary Clinton is elected, it will show most of us that we are truly being controlled by the elite. Either way, the future has a dark cloud above it.

READ MORE +

Why Bernie Supporters are Flocking to Trump

It may seem unlikely to the regular political pundits that supporters of a far left wing candidate would choose a right wing candidate when their candidate is no longer running, but that seems to be what is happening in many instances.

What the regular political pundits don’t seem to realize, is that this election isn’t about Democrat and Republican, it is about establishment and the regular folks.

The Primary Coup

Most presidential primaries go the same way. Each party puts up their choices, and throughs in some outsider that doesn’t stand a chance to make things look fair. This primary season, however, the outsiders gained the support of the people.

The people, on both sides of the aisle, have become sick of the same old establishment politics. There doesn’t seem to be much difference between the usual Republican candidates and Democrat candidates. Barack Obama was elected on a platform of change. He promised to end the wars, yet started more. He promised to end the invasion of citizens privacy, but expanded it. He promised to reign in Bush’s spending, but doubled the national debt. His election brought with it the promise to unify the nation, yet he divided it.

This isn’t just Obama’s problem, or the Democrats. The Republicans are just as guilty. Bush promised to lower spending, yet he increased it. He promised to shrink government, but he expanded it. He promised us more personal freedom, and left us with less.

The two parties are corrupt. The people wanted the outsider, the anti-establishment candidate.

So in this primary cycle, both parties turned to that person. On the Democrat side, it was Bernie Sanders. On the Republican side, it was Donald Trump.

The Republicans tried to get rid of Trump with slander, and bad press, but it didn’t work. Trump won the nomination. This scared the hell out of the establishment. Seeing the same thing going on in the Democrat primaries, they vowed not to let this election cycle come without an establishment candidate on a major party ticket. So the Democrats used ever trick on the book from voter manipulation, to flat out voter fraud to get the establishment candidate on the ticket, and to get rid of Bernie.

The Election Season

So now, the election season is turned upside down. There is a liberal running as a Republican, and a conservative running as a Democrat. Or, more accurately, the establishment running as a democrat, and the anti-establishment running as a Republican.

How is Trump more liberal then Hillary you may ask? Well, let’s look at both of their histories.

Trump is a champion of women’s rights. Many news reports during the campaign have tried to call Trump sexist, or a misogynist, but his history speaks otherwise. In Trumps 1987 book “The Art of the Deal”, he wrote that he hired “a lot of women for top jobs, and they’re among my best people.”  Today, according to Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, there are more women than men holding executive positions in the Trump Organization, heading such departments as human resources, golf and hotel management, and global licensing, even though women make up just 43 percent of the overall workforce. Women who are in similar positions as men, Cohen said, “are compensated at equal and in many cases higher pay rates.”

And what about Hillary? Obviously a woman would be better for women, right? If we take a look back to the 1990’s, and Bill Clintons string of sex scandals, we see that the Clinton administration aggressively discredited women who accused Bill of sexual assault and even rape. Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, “Mrs. Clinton had supported the effort to push back against the women’s stories.”

bernie-supporters-never-hillaryEven though now, while campaigning, Hillary Clinton states that every woman who accuses someone of sexual misconduct has “the right to be believed”, back when the accusers where accusing her husband, the Washington Times reports “Mrs. Clinton’s intent to “destroy” the story of one accuser, while former adviser Dick Morris said Mrs. Clinton engaged in “blackmail” to try to force women to recant their stories.”

What about business? We all know that the democrats are the champions of the working class and they fight against Wall Street, the big banks, and corporate greed. And Donald Trump, well he is a billionaire businessman. He must be a part of the problem right?

Donald Trump has always been an outsider in big business. He has a track record of fighting the banks, and supporting entrepreneurs. In 1933, after the great depression, the US passed the Glass-Steagall Act that effectively prohibited big banks taking part in both commercial banking and investment banking. This was done to stop banks from failing due to loosing investments backed by regular peoples money. Without Glass-Steagall, banks could basically gamble with your money. Bill Clinton passed the so called “Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999” which effectively repealed Glass-Steagell. Less then 10 years later, in 2008, the banking crises destroyed our economy due to the very activities that Glass-Steagall had been preventing.

The reinstatement of Glass-Steagall has been a part of the platform for many left leaning political groups in the years since the 2008 recession including groups like “Occupy Wall Street”. Although both Clinton and Trump have stated that they would like to reinstate Glass-Steagall, Trump has a history of fighting banks, and Clinton has a history of supporting them… so who do you believe.

But what about Trump’s Wall? Many news reports have stated that Trump wants to build a wall to keep out immigrants. These news stories are promoting an agenda. Trump does want to build a wall, but it is to keep out illegal immigrants. There is a big difference that the establishment doesn’t want you to understand. America is a country built by immigration, and immigrants are a good, and necessary part of our country. As long as they follow the rules, and come here legally.

Clinton agrees. In fact, Hillary Clinton has several times bragged about voting to build a wall to keep out illegal immigrants. So even though the mainstream media may want you to think that Donald Trump is a bigot conservative for wanting to build a wall on the Mexican boarder, Hillary Clinton has voted to do the same thing.

But what about LGBT rights? Donald Trump has to be against gay rights… right? Looking at it historically, Trump and Clinton seem to share the same views. Although some may argue that Trump is a better candidate for the LGBT community then Clinton. The New York Times says that Trump “has nurtured long friendships with gay people, employed gay workers in prominent positions, and moved with ease in industries where gays have long exerted influence”. When Trump’s longtime friend Elton John married his partner David Furnish in 2005, Trump took to his blog to say “I know both of them and they get along wonderfully. It’s a marriage that’s going to work.”

However, Donald Trump has also stated that he is against gay marriage, and instead supports civil unions that provide the same rights as marriage. This is a sentiment that Hillary Clinton has stated time and time again. In 2004 Clinton called marriage a “sacred bond between a man and a woman”. In 2002, Hillary said she did not think New York state should recognize gay marriage.  Although now Clinton says she supports gay marriage, her history says otherwise.

So what makes someone “liberal” or “conservative”? Is it gun control and abortion? For here, the candidates are clearly following party lines, aren’t they?

Donald Trump has said that he is against public funding of Planned Parenthood. But does that make him pro-life? In an interview in 1999, Trump said “I’m very pro-choice, I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject. But you still — I just believe in choice.” I agree wholeheartedly. I am against abortion. I will never have one. But I believe that I only have the right to make that decision for myself. I do not agree with government funding of abortion however. If you want it, that is your choice… but you can pay for it.

Hillary Clinton supports abortion 100%. She believes it should be paid for by the government (tax payers).

So the reality on abortion is that both candidates are pro choice. They only differ on who should pay for.

And then there is gun control. Hillary Clinton is a supporter of gun control, and does not believe in the people’s right to bear arms. Donald Trump supports the right to bear arms, and currently is a NRA member. However, in his 2000 book, The America we Deserve, Trump wrote “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,”

So what does this mean for gun control? Not much really. Both gun control and abortion are issues that get people riled up. But in truth, no Republican will overturn Roe v Wade, and no Democrat will overturn the 2nd amendment. George W Bush was a strong pro life supporter, yet he did nothing to stop abortion. Barack Obama is a strong gun control advocate, and his policies have only increased gun sales.

Abortion and gun control are red herrings. They are issues that are meant to get you riled up and scared, but no one will ever really do anything about them.

If we stop listening to what lies politicians say when they are trying to get elected, and instead focus on what those same people actually did during their lives, we can see that Donald Trump is clearly more liberal then Hillary Clinton. More then that, we can see that Donald Trump is clearly the anti establishment candidate.

Hillary Clinton will continue the policies of the establishment that have failed our country for decades. She is controlled by the same people that control Obama, and Bush before him. Many Bernie supporters see that, and see that Trump is the anti establishment choice. Unfortunately, so many people are stuck to party lines, that they will vote Republican even when the Democrat running is more conservative, or they will vote Democrat, even when the Republican running is more liberal. That’s the funny thing about this country. To many people are sheep.

READ MORE +

How The Elite are Manipulating the Poor to Start a Socialist Revolution

Socialism sound nice on paper. As a result, it is easy to convince uneducated people that socialism is a good idea. The problem is, Socialism doesn’t work on a large scale. On a small scale, socialism works great. Take for instance, the nuclear family: one spouse is the money maker, and the other spouse handles the home management, and the delegation of duties among the children. Everyone is financially cared for by the money maker, and everyone else does their part to care for the other needs of everyone (including the money maker).

But the elite didn’t like this. It didn’t give them enough power, or enough control over resources.

The elite wanted to enslave us all. But nobody wants to be a slave, so they had to trick us.

What is a Slave

Boulanger_Gustave_Clarence_Rudolphe_The_Slave_MarketLet’s define what a slave is so we are all on the same page here. Most of you will say that a slave is the property of another person. Now that is true, but “property” in this case is an abstract thought. Instead of using property, let’s get down to what slavery really means.

A slave is someone who has a master. A slave is chosen by their master. A slave can not change their master under their own free will. The slave does a job for their master, and in return, the master maintains the slave. (the master provides food, shelter, and medical treatment because a broken slave does less work). If the slave is “broken” the master must replace him at a great loss of investment.

Now let’s compare that slave to a lower income worker. A worker has a Boss. A worker is chosen by their boss. A worker can change their boss, but unless they have already been chosen by another boss, they do so at great peril. A worker does a job for their boss, and in return, the boss compensates the worker. (If the worker is lucky, the compensation is high enough that the worker can pay for food, shelter, and medical treatment). If the worker is “broken” the boss will replace him with minimal loss of investment.

When all of your income goes to paying rent, insurance, car payments, and groceries, then you are nothing more then a slave with multiple masters. And the reality is, you don’t even have multiple masters, you just think you do. The same bankers you pay your car payment to, your landlord pays a mortgage to, and your boss pays a small business loan to. That bank owns the insurance company, and both they grocery store, the trucking company that brings the groceries and the farm are that made your food are paying loans to that same bank. It seems we are all slaves to the banks owned by the elites.

But the upper middle class makes enough money to have a little bit of freedom. They own their homes, they own their businesses, they aren’t indebted to the elite. So the elite started a long plan to change the system to a government socialism.

Why socialism? Historically, socialism never hurts the elite, it only makes them stronger. What socialism does, is it takes from the upper middle class to prop up the bottom rungs. Socialism makes everyone, except the elite, a low income worker… a slave. So how do they turn a democracy into a socialist state?

The Start of the Socialist Takeover

We have all heard of the “Red Scare” in the 1950’s. Unfortunately, the Red Scare was much more real then most of us realized. It has since been marginalized by the socialists so that we don’t see how well they really infiltrated our system. 1950’s America was a great society. It had it’s flaws, but overall it was good. The socialists new that to bring down our democracy, they had to bring down our great system. To do this, they went after our flaws, and manipulated them into a new system of change that would look like small improvements that would eventually make things worse, and call for more change. Time after time, the change would make things worse, and call out for more change until eventually we changed so much from what we were that we asked to be changed into what we never wanted to be.

The First Move

W.H._Shumard_family,_circa_1955First, they convinced the people that the old system was oppressive to women. They convinced some that they had no value if they were just a home maker. Now, to be clear, I am not saying a romans place is in the home. Women can be the money maker just as easily as men can. What I am saying is that the “domestic manager” is a valuable position that should be 1 spouses full time job.

In convincing people that a “domestic manager” is a useless job, this drove a huge spike in the amount of people in the job market. As any economist will tell you, a huge supply of workers lowers wages. The effects of this are still felt today in the “wage gap”. Why pay that man 50k per year to do a job that 10 women, who will take 30k per year, just applied for.

This is why jobs like doctor or scientist (that take 8+ years of college education) pay so much higher then job like retail, or fast food (that anyone can do). The more applicants available for a job, the lower the wage.

Now you have both spouses working, and when you combine their incomes, and subtract the extra expenses they pay for more convenient items (because there is no longer someone at home all day to cook, clean, or take care of the kids, so the spouses are now spending more money on prepared meals, cleaning services {or expensive equipment to cut down cleaning time}, and daycare, not to mention a 2nd car etc), the 2 working spouses now have less disposable income then 1 working spouse had before.

Civil_Rights_March_on_Washington,_D.C._(Dr._Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._and_Mathew_Ahmann_in_a_crowd.)_-_NARA_-_542015_-_RestorationThe Civil Rights movement is another place where socialists took something that needed to be done, and subverted it. Any country that claims to be based on democratic principles, and freedom has no place discriminating against large parts of it’s population for any reason. However, many things that happened as a result of the Civil Rights movement could have been done in a better way. For example, the Voting Rights act of 1965 made literacy test for voter registration illegal. Since I do believe that you should have a bit of intelligence before helping make decisions that effect everyone, wouldn’t it have been better to offer free education to illiterate people, and leave the literacy requirement for voter registration?

It has also been noted that many of the laws aimed at helping the black communities of the time inadvertently decimated the black owned small businesses that catered to those communities. This, in turn, sent many black business owners, and workers back to white bosses(masters).

Many other laws were passed under the guise of “Civil Rights” that has helped the elitists draw more power unto themselves like the ability of the Federal Government to sue regular Americans and small businesses.

Fool the Poor & Destroy the Middle Class

The next trick the socialists use to convert a democratic society to socialism is to fool the poor, and destroy the middle class. One of the easiest ways to do this is with the raising of the minimum wage.

I have never been hired at minimum wage, but I have worked at minimum wage. How is that possible? Minimum wage increased to what I had already been making. You see, most people that promote raising minimum wage fail to see that the people who make above minimum wage don’t get a raise when minimum wage goes up. I was once hired at a company for $7.50 an hour when the minimum wage in that state was $7.00. After a year, I went up to $7.75. After another year, I went up to $8.00. A couple months later, minimum wage went up to $8.00. Two years with a company that had hired me at above minimum wage, and I was making minimum wage. The prices of everything else (groceries, fast food, etc…) went up. My pay didn’t. It was like I had a pay cut.

Only 1% of the population makes minimum wage, and they are the only people to “benefit” from an increase in minimum wage. And I say benefit loosely. Minimum wage is always bad, no matter what minimum wage is. When I first started working, minimum wage was $4.35 an hour. I paid $350.00 a month for a 2 bedroom / 2 bath apartment, (I wanted to buy a 3 bedroom / 2 bathroom house with a 2 car garage, but I couldn’t afford it. It cost $30,000), gas was $0.87 a gallon. A gallon of milk was $0.99, a pack of cigarettes was $1.75, a hamburger at McDonalds was $0.29, and 6 tacos from taco bell was $2.99. A lap dance at a strip club was $5.00, and if you went in to a bar at happy hour they had $0.05 drafts (on Wednesdays).

Raising minimum wage is a trick. the 1% of people who make minimum wage are still only making minimum wage, and it causes the prices to go up for everyone else. If you really want to help wages, make a mandatory “cost of living (inflation) +x%” annual pay increase the law.

The next thing you need to do to hurt the middle class is attack their savings through things like the subprime mortgage scandal, and systematic stock market crashes. You can also convince them not to save at all by promoting the need to have the latest expensive tech gadget, new cars every couple years, top of the line clothes, and any number of other things that cause the middle class to spend themselves out of financial independence.

As you systematically destroy the income and savings of the middle class, they slowly fall in with the poor who are already receiving public assistance. And as the majority of Americans now receive public assistance, the less people there are to pay for that assistance. Yet the calls to increase that assistance will just get louder. Eventually this destroys the savings and income of the upper middle class who is now forced to pay for what the elite has stolen from the poor and lower middle class. Soon there will be no more middle class. Just an elite, and the rest of us poor slaves.

The Killing Blow to Democracy

Black_Lives_Matter_Black_Friday_(15902086996)As you continue to destroy the middle class, you need to start convincing the poor that the middle class is out to get them. (you don’t want them joining sides after all). One way to do this is by pushing thing like the “racist cop” narrative. Even though white people are far more likely to be killed by a cop then black people are, every time a black person is killed by a cop, it turns into a “racist cop” story. Even when the facts usually show that the cop was doing his job properly.

Now let’s go back to that “white people are more likely to be killed by cops then black people are” line. I know a lot of you are saying, sure white people are 43% of people killed by police, and black people are 30% but black people are only 12% of the population. That means black people are far more likely to be killed by police then white people. But there is no question that black people have encounters with police officers at a much higher rate. For example, one study on racial profiling found that In Maryland, a study revealed that 70 percent of those stopped and searched on a stretch of I–95 were African American—despite the fact that they represented only 17 percent of drivers on the road.

Now, the higher percentage of black people being stopped by police may be something that needs to be looked into, but the fact remains, taking into account the percentage of incidents with police officer, you are just as likely, if not more so, to be killed if you are white then if you are black.

However, the blatant attempt by the media, and our current administration, to push a division between the black community and the middle class working men of law enforcement by pushing this “racist cop” narrative is directly responsible for things like the sniper attack that left 5 Dallas Police officers dead earlier this week.

In return, the Dallas shooting makes both police, and suburban non black people, more wary… and in some ways more prejudice, against black people. This, and other incidents like it where the black community is instigated into violence by racist narratives that turn out to be false, are creating a growing divide between the black community and the rest of the country that could take generations to heal.

But this is what the socialists want. They want the people to be fighting amongst themselves so we are turning a blind eye to the elites who are robbing all of us blind. The y want the people scared of their neighbors so that we will demand the government do more to keep us safe at the cost of our own freedoms.

Already happening is the call to disarm us. The right to keep and bear arms is the only right we have that really matters, because it is the right that allows us to defend every other right. Without the 2nd amendment, the rest of them are useless.

But when you are trying to take over a country, trying to change the very essence of that country, trying to usurp power from the people and collect it into the hands of the elite, you don’t want the people to be able to fight back.

The socialist plan is to create a place where things are so bad that the people revolt. The people rise up to demand socialism. This is a very dangerous plan when the people are armed. This is why gun control is so important of an issue to the elite. You just can’t let your slaves have guns.

The elite want to make us slaves through socialism. Socialism is the abandonment of individual rights for the “good of society”. However in every case that it has been implemented, it turned into the abandonment of individuals rights for the good of the elite.

READ MORE +

Top 5 Reasons Obama is the Worst President in History

President Obama’s historic election in 2008 seemed like it could be a turning point for America. He campaigned and was elected on a platform to end income inequality, racial inequality, aggressive military policies, and trampling of individual rights in the US. Unfortunately, he failed on every one of these measures.

Here is our list of the top 5 reasons Obama is the worst president in history.

Guantanamo Bay detention camp

Obama made several pledges to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay during his campaign for president in 2008 calling it “a sad chapter in American history”. To this day, the facility remain in operation.

Wars

iraq-warObama campaigned on opposition to former President Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Afghanistan was began on October 7th 2001, and the US handed the country over to NATO Peacekeepers on August 11th, 2003. (America remained only as support for the NATO Peacekeepers.

On December 1st, 2009, President Obama announces a troop “surge” into Afghanistan returning American troops to major combat operations. In 2016, the US still has a heavy military presence in Afghanistan.

March 20th, 2003, the US invasion of Iraq began. By May 1st, the Iraqi Government had fallen, and a coalition government was formed by August. The Iraq insurgency caused continuing military operations in Iraq for many more years.

In November 2008, the The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, between President G.W. Bush and the democratically elected Iraqi government stipulated all US troops would leave Iraq by 2011.

President Obama ignored this agreement, and there are currently (2016) over 5,000 US troops still in Iraq.

In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama has expanded former president Bush’s “war on terror” and throughout his presidency has had major military operations in:

  • Iraq
  • Afghanistan
  • Syria
  • Libya
  • Pakistan
  • Somalia
  • Yemen

In addition SOCOM has Special Operation units involved in combat operations in 134 countries

The Surveillance State

While campaigning for president in 2007, Obama said: “No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime, no more tracking citizens…”. Obama also said that mass surveillance of the American people put “forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.” Things changed once he became president however. In 2013, after news broke that the US government was collecting and monitoring all Americans cell phone date (including numbers called, and GPS locations and time stamps), The Obama administration released a statement saying the blanket, unwarranted surveillance of American citizens was a “critical tool in protecting the nation from terror threats” and that “[t]he president welcomes a discussion of the trade-offs between security and civil liberties.”

Although it seems as if president Obama is saying that these sacrifices of personal liberty are necessary to preserve our safety, terrorist attacks are on the rise. many would argue that it is president Obama’s very policies that have allowed more, deadlier, and more frequent terrorists attacks to occur.

Obama campaigned as an opponent to the surveillance state, and presided over the largest expansion of the surveillance state in history.

Race Relations

The Revelution Will Not Be televisedFor many of us, the 2008 election of President Obama seemed to symbolize the end of racism in America. It was proof that we, as a people, had overcome this stain on our nation. As someone who grew up in the 1980’s and 90’s, I felt that I had seen race relations steadily improving through the late 90’s and early 2000’s, and that the election of a black president was a symbolic victory over racism in this country.

However, since the election of President Obama, race relations have nose dived. This country, racially, is in far worse shape then it was when I was a child in the 1980’s or any time since.

A Rasmussen poll early this year showed that 50% of Americans think race relation are getting worse, and only 20% think they are getting better.

Time magazine, the New York Times and CBS also say race relations have deteriorated under the Obama administration. The New York Post declared that Obama has “turned back the clock on race relations”. PJMedia calls it “The Tragic and Complete Collapse of Racial Relations”. townhall.com says that “Race Relations Have Taken a Nosedive Under Obama”

The Economy

National debt

The National debt in 2008 (the last year of President Bush’s term) was $10,024,724,896,912.49.  When Bush took office, the debt was $5,674,178,209,886.86. This means that G.W. Bush raised the US National Debt $4,350,546,687,025,83. In 2016 it has ballooned to $18,825,061,664,535.94. This means that President Obama raised the National debt $8,801,736,767,623.45. That is more then double what GW Bush did. Think about that. Under Bush, many people complained of insane government spending to fund 2 unpopular wars and the expansion of the surveillance state. Obama doubled that spending yet still cut benefits to the American people.

economic growth rate

10_straight_years-gdp_growth-chartThe Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated the GDP since 1929. In that time, there has never been a time where the GDP has not gone over 3% during a 10 year stretch until President Obama. In 2006, under President Bush, the GDP slipped to 2.7%. It has not gone above that since. In 2016, Bloomberg reported that the first quarter had a GDP of 0.5%. (Under President Bush, the media started saying we were in a recession when the GDP slowed to a 2.3% growth… The economy is far worse now.

Unemployment

While the Obama administration likes to claim that it is doing good on the unemployment rate, the truth is otherwise. The administration claims a 4.7% unemployment rate. However they are using the U-3 unemployment numbers which doesn’t included a lot of people that are unemployed. Using the U-6 numbers, the unemployment numbers are at 9.7%. This is still far higher then pre-recession numbers.

% of Americans on public assistance

Forbes has reported that more then half of the country is now receiving taxpayer funded government subsidies. There is a theory that the only way to turn a democratic society to socialism is to make things so bad for the majority of people, that they demand socialism.

Growth of economic divide

President Obama has been at the forefront of slamming the top “1%” in this country, but according to Huffington Post (usually a cheerleader for the Obama administration) “the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country” during Obama’s Presidency. This is a huge increase from the 65% of income growth that the 1% gained under former president Bush. The New York Times states “Income inequality in the United States has been growing for decades, but the trend appears to have accelerated during the Obama administration. ”

Did we miss anything? Do you disagree? This is why we think Obama is the worst president in history, let us know what you think in the comments below.

READ MORE +

The Orlando Terrorist Attack: There is Something Wrong With The Narrative

omar-mateen-4-225x300The terrorist attack on the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando Florida on June 12th, 2016 was a horrible act of violence perpetrated against innocent people. I think we can all agree on that. But the more I read about what happened, the more things don’t seem to add up.

Let’s start with the official story. Just before closing time, American born 29 year old Omar Mateen entered a LGBT nightclub in Orlando and began killing people. Armed with an “assault rifle” and a handgun, Mateen killed 49 people, and injured 53 more. After a 3 hour standoff, Orlando police crashed through a wall and engaged Mateen in a gunfight some have called a “hail of bullets”. Sateen was killed. Sateen is said to have acted alone.

Was He a Jihadist?

President Obama has said “We know enough to say this was an act of terror and act of hate,”. Mateen’s parents, who are from Afghanistan, said he’d expressed outrage after seeing two men kiss in Miami. They also say that they didn’t consider him particularly religious.

So it would seem that this was just a lone, crazy man with access to guns and a hatred of homosexuals… It just doesn’t add up.

NBC has been trying to claim that Mateen was a hateful, racist, bigot, and not a religious person at all. Yet many people who were inside the club have stated that Mateen tried to not hit black people and one person has said that Mateen “I don’t have a problem with Black people” and another victim claims she was spared because she was Black and that Mateen said to her “Black people have suffered enough”. The victim goes on to say that Mateen said “This is about my country.” Was he speaking of Afghanistan? Some of the victims, as we have seen, were indeed Black, but we do also know that at least two of them were in the bathroom where Mateen eventually engaged Police Officers, and that the NY Post has hinted that some of the victims may have fallen to “Friendly Fire”. One of the victims in that bathroom, Akyra Murray, was said (by her friend) to have been shot once in the arm. She latter died from her injuries. Was she hit additional times by “Friendly Fire”?

Just before the attacks began, Mateen called 911, and pledged allegiance to ISIS. And although the media is reporting “There has been no claim of responsibility for the attack on jihadi forums, but ISIS sympathizers have reacted by praising the attack on pro-Islamic State forums.”, other media reports say A message posted in Arabic on a dark web site associated with the ISIS news agency Amaq said “the armed attack that targeted a gay night club in the city of Orlando in the American state of Florida and that bore more than a 100 killed and wounded was carried out by an Islamic state fighter.”. That sounds like a claim of responsibility to me…

Screen-shot-2016-06-17-at-6.07.00-AMReports are coming in that Mateen may have been a regular at gay bars in Orlando, and that he had a profile on a gay dating web site. So this seems to disrupt the narrative that he was a gay hating crazy lone gunman. Mateen’s father, Seddique Matten, (who made the claim that his son hated gay people) Has publicly stated his support for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Under the Taliban, Homosexuality was crime punishable by death. It seems clear that a man that supports a hardline religious government that advocates the death penalty for homosexuality would have instilled those same values in his son. He just wouldn’t admit that to the rest of us. Seddique Mateen had claimed he was running for president of Afghanistan, which made me think he was a nut case himself, until I found that he has actually had meetings with the State Department, and prominent congressman involved with foreign affairs (some reports say he had even met with President Obama).

Omar Mateen, seems to have been far more religious then the media reports want us to believe.  While attending a barbecue in 2017, Mateen reported threatened to shoot everyone at the event after a piece of pork accidentally touched his hamburger. Mateen also reportedly claimed on social media that he wanted to be a “Martyr” for Islam. In addition, Mateen traveled to Saudi Arabia (another country that enforces the death penalty for homosexuality) in 2011, and 2012 for the Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca called Umrah. These do not seem like the actions of someone who is “not very religious”.

Is it possible that Omar Mateen’s father claims that Mateen was not a practicing Muslim because he found out that he had experimented with homosexuality, and he then told his son that the only way he could make reparations to Allah for his sin was to commit the horrendous act we saw on June 12th? That is only speculation, but an interesting point.

What Happened in the Club Doesn’t Make Sense

orlando-terrorist-attack-weaponThe actual events that took place in the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando don’t make much sense as they are being reported. Omar Mateen fired off between 500 and 1,000 rounds while inside the club. There is no official number, but we can speculate based on the following information: 49 people were killed, and 53 people injured. Many of the killed and injured were struck multiple times with reports of survivors being hit 8, and 10 times. The shootout with the police that eventually ended the attack was said to be a “hail of bullets”. In a high stress combat situation, well trained troops often have a 20% accuracy rate. Omar Mateen was not highly trained.

The main weapon used by Omar Mateen was a Sig Sauer MCX. This weapon comes with a 20 or 30 round magazine, but takes a standard size magazine that has 50 round versions available. If he fired 1,000 rounds, then he would have had to have had 20 magazines, at a weight of 40 pounds, with him when he walked into the bar as well as a 30 inch long rifle. He would have had to reload 20 times, and if he was trained, it would take him 5 seconds to reload, ready the weapon and begin firing again. (that doesn’t take into account extra time needed to fumble through whatever he was carrying the magazines in in the dark.) Even if he was extremely accurate, he still would have had to reload 4 or 5 times in his initial attack.

In close quarters combat, and Sig Sauer MCX is a lousy weapon. The 2 and a half foot length makes it difficult to swing around and aim, and the .223 rounds he was using are not very effective. I spoke with an Army weapons trainer who explained to me the 5.56 (the military version of the .223) is designed to be a “non-lethal” round. A .223 round is the same size projectile as a .22 with the main difference being it has more powder, and is therefore more likely to just go straight through you. (whereas a .22 will likely loose momentum and tumble around inside of you.) Yet a .22 is considered by many to be a “toy gun”. I received my marksmanship merit badge in the Boy Scouts with a .22 rifle when I was 13 years old, and I owned a semi-automatic .22 rifle when I was 11 years old. Soldiers are trained to put 3 rounds of 5.56/.223 in someone’s chest to take them out of the fight without killing them. (this explains the survivors with multiple gunshot wounds). What this doesn’t explain is why no one seems to have fought back. No one hit him over the head with a bottle or a chair? No one was behind him, or to his side when he started shooting? No one saw him walking through the club with 40 pounds of ammo and a 30 inch rifle?

Could it be that Omar Mateen was not acting alone?

This former NYPD officer lays out a convincing argument as to why he suspects Omar Mateen was not the only shooter in the Pulse Nightclub. Here is a statement from someone who is reported to be an “eyewitness”. He claims that Mateen said he was the 4th shooter.

<script async src=”//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=“utf-8″></script>

Another person who was in the club says he heard multiple guns going off at the same time, and that he is pretty sure there was more then one shooter. This witness also claims that the weapon used was fully automatic. Despite claims by the anti gun groups, this isn’t a modification that Mateen could have made to the weapon he is said to have been carrying.

This series of videos filmed by people outside the club, shows police engaged in a gun fight outside the club. Mateen was shot by police inside the club in a bathroom.

This article has multiple other accounts of people who were in the club at the time of the attack claiming there was multiple shooters. A radio station in New York has even claimed that a second shooter was arrested.

Whether Omar Mateen was acting alone inside the Pulse Nightclub, or if he had accomplices either protecting him, keeping people from escape, or actively participating in the shooting, we may never know because it doesn’t fit the mainstream narrative that Mateen was a crazy lone gunman.

Did Omar Mateen Have Help on the Outside?

Another issue with the Orlando terrorist attack that has been bothering me is the logistics of the actual attack. Within a week of the attack, Omar Mateen supposedly bought the two guns used and ammunition used in the attack. The MSRP for the Sig Sauer MCX is $1,866. A 50 round magazine for the MCX will cost about $50. 20 of those adds another $1,000 to the total. 1200 rounds of .223 ammo (in bulk) will cost another $500. A Glock 17 costs about $600. So we are over $4,000 in weapons purchased a week before the attack by Omar Mateen. Shouldn’t this have thrown up a red flag somewhere? Isn’t it odd that someone who works as a security guard would have an extra $4,000 laying around to buy weapons?

Mateen apparently tried to cover his tracks somewhat buy buying the weapons and ammunition at different stores. One gun store in Florida claims Mateen tried to purchase body armor and ammunition from their store. When they became suspicious of him, and refused, Mateen called someone and started arguing with them over the phone in Arabic. Is this evidence of an accomplice? The store owner says he called the FBI to report Mateen. It seems that the FBI (who are likely now in possession of Mateen’s phone) could go back to the date he visited that gun store, and figure out who he was speaking to.

What did the Government Know?

Seddique Mateen was also pictured with Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Seddique Mateen pictured with Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

And let’s talk about what the FBI did or did not know. The FBI interviewed Omar Mateen 3 separate times while investigating him for terrorism. Department of Homeland Security agent Philip Haney has stated that he was investigating terrorism links to not only the Mosque that Omar Mateen went to 3 times a week (3 times a week? didn’t they say he wasn’t very religious?), but also the Mosque that the San Bernardino shooters went to, as part of the same investigation. However, the investigation was shut down because the State Department (then run by Hillary Clinton) and the Obama administration believed it unfairly singled out Muslims. I can understand a concern for civil liberties violations, but after the San Bernardino attack, wouldn’t it have been prudent to re open that investigation?

Considering Omar Mateen worshiped at a Mosque that was under investigation for terrorism links, and considering that Omar Mateen himself had been investigated several times for terrorism, how then was Omar Mateen able to pass a federal background check for an armed security guard license? How was Omar Mateen able to pass a federal background check to work for a security company with national security contracts? How was Omar Mateen able to pass a federal background check to purchase weapons?

Did Omar Mateens father pull strings with his government contacts in the State Department to clear Omar Mateens background checks?

Did the Government Know Beforehand?

Is it possible that the government knew before hand that this was going to happen, yet they did nothing to stop it? This theory is not without precedent. Their is ample evidence the US Government knew the Pearl Harbor Attack that started WWII was imminent, yet did nothing to stop it. Some people think the same can be said about 9/11. Whether this knowledge fell on deaf ears because our leaders are inept, or because the government wanted the attacks to happen to push an agenda, we do not know. But Pearl Harbor did lead us into WWII, and 9/11 did lead us into war with Afghanistan and Iraq. Was the Orlando attack allowed to happen to push gun control on the American people?

Did The Government Plan It?

In the 1960’s, the US Government proposed Operation: Northwoods. The proposal included “False Flag” attacks, and orchestrating terrorist attacks in Florida to sway public opinion against the Cubans. President JFK rejected the proposal, but that doesn’t mean similar proposals haven’t been approved today. The simple fact that reports from inside the club seem to indicate the shooter (or shooters) were well trained military personnel, seem to back up this claim.

The problem with this theory is that the administration, and the mainstream media are trying to hard to force the events of the Orlando shooting into their agenda. They are telling us that this a hate crime against gays, and not a jihadi attack. They are telling us this is a lone nut job who had too easy access to firearms, when he was obviously surrounded by Islamic extremist sympathizers and enablers. If the government planned this attack, they would have picked a better patsy.

Did the Orlando Attack Even Happen?

There is an interesting theory that the entire Pulse Nightclub attack was an orchestrated, fictional event. The article linked above shows some very compelling video of what is obviously staged events of “victims” being carried away from the club. This clip that shows an “injured” club goer not only being carried to the club, instead of away from it, but being put down, and standing on his own when they think the camera is panned away is particularly damning.

However, I think this is more the result of news stations trying to have a better story then their counterparts. The reporters at the scene need good footage for the story so they ask people to “show us how you carried your friend out of the club”.

My Final Thoughts

I think the Pulse Nightclub Terrorist Attacks is a sad case of a troubled youth who may have had homosexual leanings but was brought up in a violent and oppressive religion. He was forced to hide who he was from his family and friends, and when they found out, he was forced to “make amends for his sins” by committing an atrocious act that their view of their religion demands.

I think our government and the mainstream media immediately tried to put a spin on this to further their own agenda to disarm the American people. They have distorted the facts to make this look like it was a “lone nut-job” who was a non practicing Muslim, was a racist, and hated gay people. They have made the villain not the man who committed the attack, nor the twisted version of Islam that his family and friends support, but his ability to purchase a weapon. Even though he should have (at the very least) been under surveillance for purchasing that weapon (hell, I’m probably under surveillance for all the things I searched on Google to write this article). As a result, we may never know who was pushing Omar Mateen to act, who was enabling him, and who may have been assisting him.

Where this horrific Islamic Terrorist Attack should have been used to bring light to the bigotry against the LGBT community from within the Islamic community, and maybe help drive the leaders who perpetrate that hate out of places of authority in the Muslim communities, it is instead being used to further divide our country. And that makes this tragedy even more tragic.

How can people claim that this attack has nothing to do with Islam when just weeks prior to the Pulse Nightclub Terrorist Attack, a Muslim Imam spoke in Orlando who has said that gay people must be killed out of compassion. Let us not forget the Muslim who tried to burn down a gay nightclub in Seattle in 2014. No one was injured, and the incident was written off as “homophobia”. Are we really going to ignore the simple fact that these people are under the influence of religious elders who tell them it is okay to kill gay people? Are we so afraid of being labeled “Islamaphobic” that we will ignore the calls but a large number of the Muslim community to kill gay people? Are we going to continue to ignore Islams role when people do what their Islamic leaders tell them to do?

READ MORE +