Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes.
Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION message was removed.
HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD YOU MIGHT WANNA READ THIS !!!! Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn’t know this. It’s easy to check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts. Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION message was removed. Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. His promises are in italics, with updates in bold. 1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary [No longer voluntary], 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program [Now 7.65% on the first $90,000, and 15% on the first $90,000 if you’re self-employed], 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year [No longer tax deductible], 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program [Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and Spent], and 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income [Starting with Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed]. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put away’ — you may be interested in the following: Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate. Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US AND MY FAVORITE: Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Now, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, though. Some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so — but it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
The dire prediction is one that is easy to see coming: An eventual economic failure is the lit match, while the total lack of national cultural identity is the gasoline. The media and governmental apparatchiks stand by to stoke the fires.
We are Yugoslavia circa 1980’s.
Rebloged with permission
Many people, the opinions of whom I greatly respect, have written on the state of politics and society in the US in such a way as to suggest the possibility of the US moving into a period of similar to what was seen in the former republic of Yugoslavia from the mid 1980’s through to the late 1990’s, referred to by many as Balkanization. I’m certainly in agreement with these bloggers and writers, Matt Bracken being just one example.
The political, sociological, ethnic and racial trajectory in the US is eerily similar to that of the former Yugoslavia in many ways. In the coming years, this could even expand into the sphere of religion, though for now there doesn’t seem to be such widespread religious friction as much as there is racial/ethnic and political.
The similarities begin where Yugoslavia’s end did: With the economy. It’s always the economy. Yugoslavia was totally socialist in their economic model. For you on the left, yes, it was indeed “real” socialism, complete with the never-ending litany of financial Band-Aid’s designed mainly to keep the rigged carnival game going for as long as possible for whomever was sitting at the top getting rich. The US economy may not appear to be socialist in the same way, for whatever reason many Americans maintain the idea of some bastardization of capitalism corrupted by, well, socialists.
Both Yugoslavia and the US endlessly investigated and studied how best to fix the economic woes, and some decent ideas, even some great ideas, were formulated… And then were largely ignored, either due to a lack of will to implement them or a lack of ability. Probably it was lack of political will, since in both country’s cases, the ideas that would have worked best included laundry lists of major money cuts and reductions of federal power. The politicians in power are generally never going to go for a plan like that. They’d rather drive the train straight off the cliff themselves before letting someone else drive it to safety.
The idea so far is that the economic system in the US is simply not sustainable. The Band-Aid of borrowing more money from the US public, China, Japan, etc. and periodically raising the debt ceiling to allow it is not going to work forever, and it doesn’t require one to have any advanced understanding of economics to grasp this. You don’t need to be an expert economist to realize that $20 trillion in debt and hundreds of trillions more in unfunded liabilities is virtually insurmountable at this point. The fact that the US dollar is the currency of the world is not going to shield us from the inevitable forever. The economic problems that Yugoslavia faced in the early 1980’s, and that the US now faces, are like a lit match being held over a barrel of gasoline.
And that leads me to discuss that gasoline.
Yugoslavia had an extremely diverse country racially, ethnically and religiously. The geographic location and the early economic prosperity (or the illusion of it) attracted a lot of people from all sorts of backgrounds. After a while, the government began to show heavy favor toward certain ethnicities at the expense of others. Rigorous controls were put on employment and educational systems, favoring one ethnic group over the other with claims that there was history of abuse that needed to be atoned for. Criminal behavior by members of certain ethnic or racial groups were largely ignored by the media and law enforcement apparatus, while even the most benign actions of other groups were seized upon and used for narrative building.
Does any of this sound familiar? In the US we have a long list of “protected” groups who are favored with advantages in employment, educational and entitlement systems. Race alone is often used by the media and government, often one and the same, to build a narrative of victimization.
In Yugoslavia circa 1980’s, and in the US today, you’d see a very socially diverse people from numerous ethnic, racial, economic and religious backgrounds. When these diverse groups mingle and mix, everyone has to accept that different cultures will have friction arise when the “negative” aspects of a particular culture become unacceptable to another. In times such as those, it’s necessary for the opposing cultures to have the freedom and ability to separate for a peaceful outcome. Problems arise, always, when incompatible cultures are forced to mix in society with no avenue for voluntary separation, and these problems are heavily exacerbated when government and media get involved to force one culture to accept and integrate what they feel are the “negative” aspects of the opposing culture. An obvious and perhaps overly-simplistic example is when white, Christian American citizens are forced to accept and live alongside immigrants who wish to practice Sharia law and alter their own lives and habits in order to accommodate some of these sensitivities. A very basic example, yes, but I think it makes the point.
We are meant to swallow the lie that says “diversity is our strength” without consideration for merit, performance, ability, intelligence or actual results.
This is not meant to be an indictment on any specific culture or ethnicity, but more of a history lesson, a social observation and a dire prediction.
The history lesson is the continued failure of all socialist based economic models, whether we want to consider them “real” socialism or not. The sort of hard socialism seen in 1980’s Yugoslavia and the crony-capitalist soft socialist version seen in the US today are both examples of that failure system. As I stated earlier, it does not take any level of economic expertise to understand that our current system is insolvent and that we have passed the point of no return on a future crash of our financial system. Now that less than half of the people in the US are net-taxpayers and over half of the people in the US are receiving some sort of government assistance simply to survive, we have become a welfare state, with only decreasing numbers of producers with increasing numbers of consumers. Mathematically, it is not sustainable. Historically, it is disastrous.
The social observation is that such a mass of diverse peoples must have a voluntary pressure outlet in order to maintain peace. We must accept reality that not all cultures are able to be forced together with peaceful results. Forced proximity, with advantages, disadvantages and blame doled out to certain peoples, with a lack of opportunity to separate peacefully will always result in strife and eventual violence.
The dire prediction is one that is easy to see coming: An eventual economic failure is the lit match, while the total lack of national cultural identity is the gasoline. The media and governmental apparatchiks stand by to stoke the fires.
We are Yugoslavia circa 1980’s.
My advice? Stay out of Sarajevo.
The Gray Man is a Southern born and raised Christian American, Army combat veteran and former intelligence collector. He has worked in many foreign locations, including Afghanistan, South Korea and Germany. He has deployed with or worked alongside US Army special operations units and Cav LRS units. He is currently working as an ER nurse living in the rural Deep South, preparing for whatever man and nature can dish out.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
In a press conference where he stated the fake pipe bombs were “not hoaxes”, he described them as containing “energetic material that can become combustible when subjected to heat or friction.”
Wow! That sounds scary, doesn’t it?
Except in reality, almost anything can qualify as something that quote “becomes combustible when subjected to heat or friction.” This includes, by the way, a box of Cheerios, a loaf of bread, a tub of margarine, frozen corn…
FBI director Christopher Wray is lying to America about the fake pipe bombs. Yes, they were hoax devices. Christopher Wray may be just as dishonest as former FBI director James Comey. Suddenly Wray is trying to convince the world that the hoax pipe bomb props which were mailed to Democrats are really, somehow, IED’s (improvised explosive devices). In truth, real mail bombs don’t contain timers for the simple reason that such devices are intended to be detonated by the physical act of the recipient opening the package, not based on a specific time (since nobody knows exactly when someone will receive a package sent through the U.S. Postal Service).
Not only did these hoax pipe bombs contain mock timers crudely taped to PVC pipe; the timers had no alarm function, meaning they couldn’t even “theoretically” be used to detonate anything. They were a hoax, props, in other words, not functioning explosive devices. But director Christopher Wray is claiming they are (some how) real “IED’s.”
The FBI director also lies about “energetic material” and tries to give us techno-jargon to confuse the public. The really huge red flag in all this is how FBI director Christopher Wray resorted to techno-jargon to try and make nonexplosive materials sound like explosives. In a press conference where he stated the fake pipe bombs were “not hoaxes”, he described them as containing “energetic material that can become combustible when subjected to heat or friction.”
Wow! That sounds scary, doesn’t it?
Except in reality, almost anything can qualify as something that “becomes combustible when subjected to heat or friction.” This includes, by the way, a box of Cheerios, a loaf of bread, a tub of margarine, frozen corn, old newspapers, a pair of smelly socks, a bicycle tire and even a piece of glass. All these items burn if you cook them at a high enough temperature, which is essentially what director Wray is saying.
But none of these things are explosives. If you receive a fake pipe bomb filled with Cheerios, the Cheerios would not suddenly transform it into a real pipe bomb. According to Wray, stuffing Cheerios into a PVC pipe turns the device into an IED. The phrase “energetic material” applies to literally everything that has mass, since all mass has energy, as physics is long since taught us. Christopher Wray might as well have said, “the PVC pipes were filled with stuff, and stuff might burn if you cook it.” That’s essentially what he said. Every scientist in the world should be calling out Ray for his misleading claim.
Sayok was not charged under “weapons of mass destruction” because the bombs weren’t explosive devices. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy noted, if the mailed IED devices were “functionally explosive” they would fall under the category “weapons of mass destruction [defined by US code] and the indictment would include 18 US code 2332 a. The absence of this charge infers the devices were not functionally explosive.
In other words, Sayok wasn’t charged with sending explosive devices for the simple reason that fake pipe bombs did not contain explosives. They contained “energetic material” according to FBI director Wray, a definition that applies to anything since all matter is energy according to Einstein’s theory E equals MC squared.
The question becomes was Sayok set up and selected precisely because he was an unstable person with a criminal history that would make this hoax convincing to the public? Inquiring minds want to know.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
Let us consider who are the real inspire winners of violence and where the real threat to stability in life rests.
Something about the mad bomber doesn’t pass the smell test.
At a time where merely wearing a and and MAGA at can get you fired, or merely harangued out of your favorite restaurant, we are asked to believe that Cesar Altieri Sayoc was allowed to drive around safely in a van abundantly and meticulously adorned with pro Trump stickers and a few depicting his personal animus toward the usual anti-Trump suspects, all of their colors vibrant, un-faded in the semi tropical Florida sun.
The van was never overturned or torched wherever he parked or drove it. No tires were ever slashed, no windows were ever smashed in with a baseball bat. It was never even keyed. And there it was in pristine condition, undamaged and ready for its close-up before a media avid to blame president Trump for Sayoc’s actions.
Why would an ardent or, as the media says, “unhinged” Trump supporter, watching, as the rest of us have, the so-called “blue wave” distract before it reaches sure, amidst a roaring economy and widespread outrage over the treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the oncoming illegal alien invasion, do something so idiotic, something that could only slow the Trump train, and help Democrats blame “both sides” and trumps allegedly “toxic rhetoric”?
Why would the allegedly “MAGA Bomber”, follow mainly liberals on Twitter and have a van covered in brand-new Pro president Donald Trump stickers? It’s as if he isn’t a supporter and wants it pinned on the president.
Sayok – the allegedly mad bomber – had Trump stickers all over his vehicle. But on Twitter, he only follows 32 people – many of whom are left-wingers like Lina Dunham, Barack Obama and Jimmy Kimmel. What gives?
It doesn’t make sense, but maybe Sayok is a few fries short of a happy meal and logic doesn’t apply.
Logic most certainly will not apply to the Trump critics were already blaming Sayok’s actions on the resident of the White House. One celebrity has thought of blowing up the president. One celebrity has displayed a replica severed head of the president, a third stated he would like to punch the president in the face, and, as another notes ” it is been a long time since an actor assassinated a president.” Toxic atmosphere and toxic rhetoric indeed.
Let us consider who are the real inspire winners of violence and where the real threat to stability in life rests. And while were at it, let us answer the curious questions surrounding Cesar Altieri Sayok.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
There are recent indications that Ford and her lawyers know what’s coming. Almost immediately after Kavanaugh was sworn-in to the Supreme Court, Ford’s attorneys announced they were ending all matters pertaining to his confirmation. Subsequent to this announcement, both Ford and her attorneys have been out of the public eye.
If you’ve gone home-shopping, I’m sure you have had the experience of leaving a house thinking it was wonderful but the next morning, after your brain had distilled the memory, you realized it actually wasn’t that great.
I had the same experience with Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Right after she had finished, I thought she was very credible and deserving of my sympathy.
By the next day, however, I began having “buyer’s remorse” on Ford’s story. The whole thing began to feel, just not right, and the more I thought about it the more I began to feel it was fabricated.
I started looking at her story in the entire context of the hearing – and it just didn’t add-up.
Just when all seemed lost for the liberal senators on the committee – their staged interruptions of the confirmation committee hearings having not worked as planned – they had to go to a Plan B. It had to be something that wouldn’t just disrupt the hearing – it needed to completely blow up the whole process.
It had to be just right for the moment or it would fail, like their interruption ploy. And it was just right — and it came within a whisker of succeeding.
It you break down what they needed to accomplish in Plan B, you will understand what they had to do.
The “Me Too” movement was in full force during the hearings. Many very powerful men were being brought down, one after another, by the sheer force of a bald accusation of sexual harassment.
The movement had become so powerful that no denial by the accused man was strong enough to overcome the assumption that the woman was right.
“MeToo” had become a type of social hysteria, like Arthur Miller portrayed in his play (and movie) “The Crucible.” Hysterical young women were accusing village members of practicing witchcraft and these bare accusations were enough to get them burned at the stake.
With the “Me Too” hysteria pervading every aspect of American society all the liberal senators had to come up with was a sexual assault claim. It didn’t need to be provable, it just had to be made and made well. With this objective in mind, they set out to create Plan B.
To make the claim powerful and emotional they decided to use an accusation from a 15-year-old girl. To preclude any possible way of disproving it, they decided to use the timeframe of Kavanaugh’s high school years. Who could disprove a story that happened over 30 years ago?
They settled on using a story of a teenage high school girl claiming the teenage Kavanaugh tried to rape her – to the extent she feared for her life.
Their first task was locating the right woman for the part. They put together a list of all the girls who were in high school at the same time as Kavanaugh and that could have been in the same social group as Kavanaugh’s all-boys’ high school.
The list then had to be pared-down to women who were left-wing zealots and willing to commit perjury in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The woman had to be well educated, articulate and hold a very respectable position in society.
By the end of the screening process, they had settled on Christine Blasey Ford – a Ph.D. psychologist and university professor. She was a perfect fit.
Their goal with Ford was to create a character who was brave but frightened, and who would induce believability, credibility, and sympathy for herself, and disgust and hatred toward her attacker. They constructed a process to do just that and we watched it play out before our very eyes.
It worked-out just as planned – with an Academy Award-worthy performance by Ford. The liberal conspirators were almost giddy with what they had just pulled off, but were forced to maintain their alternating poses of sympathy and anger for the need of victim justice.
After the Ford performance had played so well, no Republican senator — all men — would dare question this fragile, brave, sympathetic, credible victim. Doing so could run the risk of ending their careers. Given their predicament, they were forced to hire a female sex-crime prosecutor who proved to be a disaster.
Plan B was working perfectly.
Ford’s performance was nearly perfect. Her testimony had been rehearsed to the point that she delivered it with compelling conviction and authority. She had rehearsed the answer to every question the liberal senators were going to ask her – including the “100% certain,” answer.
Ford was also totally prepared for the inept proxy questioner. In response to each question she asked, Ford read, verbatim, the canned response her attorneys had written for her.
For any question that might be problematic, her two attorneys would advise her not to answer under their exceedingly wide definition of the attorney-client privilege.
The most remarkable part of Ford’s performance was her voice. She was somehow able to affect the high-pitched voice of a frightened little girl and was even able to mimic the rising tone at the end of her sentences.
When I first heard this voice coming from a seasoned, middle-aged woman, I was speechless. I couldn’t believe that tiny voice with a juvenile cadence was emerging from her mouth. It was incongruous to the point of classic irony, and I was astounded that her handlers had the audacity to try to pull this off – but they did. And they did it successfully.
I finally realized why they had her do this. She was telling a story about being sexually assaulted when she was a child, so to support this illusion, they had her deliver the story in the voice of a child, as though she were that abused child on the witness stand. It was another stroke of theater genius – outrageous but brilliant. And everyone bought it.
But as I wrote earlier in this article … Ford was almost perfect in her testimony because she made some fatal mistakes. These mistakes will very likely lead her to a long, all-expense-paid stay in a federal penitentiary.
Ford’s liberal handlers had prepared her well – but not quite well enough.
Ford’s entire story was, of course, pure fiction and thus perjury, but it was so carefully constructed that no prosecutor could possibly convict her of perjury.
But there were other lies for which she could very likely be prosecuted and convicted.
1) The lie detector testimony.
Ford was directly asked if she had ever been instructed on how to pass a lie detector test or had instructed anyone else on how to do it. She unequivocally answered, “No.”
Apparently her handlers didn’t know about a former boyfriend of Ford’s who could prove she was lying. A man who Ford had dated and lived with for several years as an adult, submitted a detailed sworn statement after the hearing that Ford had instructed a friend of hers, who was seeking a federal job, on how to pass a lie detector test. That is perjury.
2) The testimony on her fear of flying and small enclosures.
The same man who submitted the sworn statement on the lie detector issue also detailed that Ford flew on airplanes frequently and had no fear, whatsoever, of flying. He also detailed that she had no fear of small enclosures and had, in fact, lived in a very tiny apartment for a long period of time. He also added that Ford had never once mentioned anything about ever being sexually assaulted and certainly never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh.
Ford testified under oath that she was reluctant to fly to Washington to be questioned because of her profound fear of flying. She also testified that she had argued with her husband about her wanting two front doors on their house because of her profound fear of being enclosed.
Both these statements are lies and constitute perjury.
3) The testimony that her attorneys did not tell her that the Senate committee investigators were willing to fly to her to conduct an interview.
This is an outrageous statement and cannot possibly be true. No attorney would ever do this – even the cretins who represented her. She was lying and prosecutors could easily ferret out the real story. It’s perjury.
4) Ford’s testimony that she had a therapy session in 2012 where she “recovered” the memory of Kavanaugh’s assault.
Ford steadfastly refused to turn over the therapist’s notes on the alleged “recovery” session to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The only logical reason she would do this would be if the notes contradict her testimony — or perhaps there never was a therapy session in the first place and, thus, no notes.
There are recent indications that Ford and her lawyers know what’s coming. Almost immediately after Kavanaugh was sworn-in to the Supreme Court, Ford’s attorneys announced they were ending all matters pertaining to his confirmation. Subsequent to this announcement, both Ford and her attorneys have been out of the public eye.
Although Ford’s story was like a page out of Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible,” the end of her story will very likely resemble Dostoyevsky’s novel, “Crime and Punishment.”
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
What we are looking at here is outward evidence that not only does the deep state very much exist but that the jig may be up.
This past week, if you were paying attention, you noticed that the deep state was revealed. And I don’t just mean hinted at or alluded to, I mean it was REVEALED, fully, in all its dark slithering unconstitutional un-elected corrupt criminal subversiveness. Did you notice?
So, what did we learn this past week that was so different? I’m so glad you asked!
We learned that the awesomely powerful government agency that is The State Department has not maintained allegiance to the law or to our nation when on last Friday a federal judge complained that he was lied to by the State Department in a suit related to Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
At a hearing on a Freedom of Information Act case about talking points related to the 2012 Benghazi attack, Judge Royce Lamberth complained that officials told the court that they had completed searching the agency’s records for information on the topic even though they knew that Clinton and other officials had used private email accounts for official business.
“The State Department told me it had produced all the records,” Lamberth complained. “That was not true at the time. It was not true. It was a lie.”
During the hearing on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth accused State Department officials of signing “clearly false” affidavits meant to thwart legal investigations into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
During the heated exchange, Lamberth said that he was left “shocked” and “dumbfounded” when he discovered that the Federal Bureau of Investigation granted former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills immunity during the investigation of Clinton’s infamous e-mail server — especially because Lamberth himself had found that she had previously perjured herself.
“I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case,” Lamberth said.
How Big Of A Deal Is This?
It’s huuuuuuge!
This is a very high-profile, very credible claim, based on a first-hand account by a federal judge, that he observed a lawless, rogue element within the highest and most powerful agencies of our government, working across the DOJ, FBI and State Department, operating completely outside the law in service of its own agenda.
If ever there was a definition of a deep state, or a state within a state, this my friends, is it.
This is a big deal. A very big deal. This story is disclosure.
This Judge’s bombshell declaration is an important public piece added to the puzzle of what happened to our country, and it comes at a curious time (again, if you’re paying attention.) It is a precarious time for the deep state, one where we see the noose of the truth tightening around the necks of its actors more and more.
There are no coincidences guys. Both the timing and content of this revelation are very noteworthy here. It lets us know things are moving swiftly enough for this Judge to suddenly be emboldened enough (read safe enough) to disclose this information.
Also on last Friday, not coincidentally, the U.S. government revealed that it used multiple informants to obtain information against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. In court filings, government officials also revealed confidential human sources were paid for their work. The FBI relied heavily on an uncorroborated dossier to obtain warrants to spy on Page.
The FBI’s use of multiple confidential sources is not a surprise, but the disclosure is the first time that the government has acknowledged using sources beyond Steele, who was hired to investigate Trump by the Democrat-connected opposition research firm, Fusion GPS.
So, the FBI has now admitted to placing spies inside the campaign of a US presidential campaign. What do you think the implications of that are? What does that really say about how the most powerful agencies of our government view ‘the rule of law?’ All of this is very telling and paints a clear picture of the absolute irrefutable fact that a ‘state within a state’ has very clearly been operating within and throughout our government. In case you’re not sure, a ‘deep state’ is by definition the opposite of a republic.
Another Important Tid Bit of Info
Combine these two revelations with what is being called a public service announcement issued by Politico, also on Friday, to all Russiagates, based on defense lawyers working on the Russia probe and more than 15 former government officials with investigation experience spanning Watergate to the 2016 election case. As the Mueller investigation shows clear signs of winding down, those waiting to see proof of collusion and treason by Donald Trump are being advised to ‘prepare for disappointment.’
What we are looking at here is outward evidence that not only does the deep state very much exist but that the jig may be up. So up in fact that it’s now safe to start disclosing how this lawless conspiratorial apparatus has functioned, in preparation for the next phase, where justice, hopefully, will be served.
My prediction is that there will be a lot more of this type of information hitting the mainstream. I also predict that as it does, the ‘migrant caravan’ (or some other distraction, like the killing of a “journalist”), will continue to swell and make noise. See how that works? Keep a keen eye out for deep state proof hitting the news!
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
This man is crass. Okay. He’s not careful with what he says. Okay. You feel offended that he’s not a typical statesman. Okay. But he is DOING THE JOB of rebuilding the nation
This was written by the mother of a Navy Seal who was KIA
THE SALTY SAILOR and the FIREMAN”
The views this mother has about Donald Trump are much like many other people. Her characterization of Trump as the “Salty Sailor” or as “The Fireman” paint an excellent picture!! She has written many great books about her son and family. This is a Comment from KAREN VAUGHN, Mother of Aaron Vaughn, Navy Seal.
Sometimes God uses the no-nonsense, salty sailor to get the job done. Appreciating what the man is doing doesn’t mean we worship the salty sailor or even desire to be like the salty sailor. It doesn’t even mean God admires the salty sailor. Maybe He just knows he’s necessary for such a time as this.
I believe with all my heart that God placed that salty sailor in the White House to give this nation one more chance in November 2016. Donald Trump is what he is – and he is still the man he was before the election – and without guilt. I very much admire what that salty sailor is accomplishing.
He’s not like me. That’s okay with me. I don’t want to be like him. I will never behave like him. I know we’ve NEVER had a man like him lead our nation before. It’s crazy and a little mind blowing at times. But I can’t help admire the stamina and ability he has – acting with his heart rather than a calculated, PC, think tank-screened, carefully edited script. I still believe that is WHY he became our President and WHY he’s been able to handle a landslide of adversity and STILL pass unprecedented amounts of good legislation for our country AND do great works for MANY other nations, including Israel.
I’m THRILLED with what he’s doing for my nation, for the cause of Christ (whether intentional or unintentional, doesn’t matter to me), and for the concept of rebuilding America and putting her FIRST. I will not be ashamed of my position because others don’t see him through the same lens.
Should it matter to me if a fireman drops an f-bomb while he’s pulling me from a burning building? Would I really care about what came out of his mouth in those moments? Heck no! I’d CARE about what he was DOING. He wasn’t sent there to save my soul and I’m not looking to him for spiritual guidance. All I’m thinking in those moments is, “Thank you, GOD, for sending the fireman.” AND DONALD TRUMP IS OUR FIREMAN.
I’ll soon post this article again for those who still might not understand me. This man is crass. Okay. He’s not careful with what he says. Okay. You feel offended that he’s not a typical statesman. Okay. But he is DOING THE JOB of rebuilding the nation my son died for… the nation I feared was on a fast track to becoming a hopeless cause.
Forgive me if I’m smiling.”
Written by KAREN VAUGHN
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
Brennan-aligned Saudi ideologues like ostracized Prince Alweed Talal; who use massive amounts of money to corrupt U.S. politicians and intelligence officials; coordinated an opportunity to strike back at Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MbS) through the death of Khashoggi.
Tribal divisions, based on political ideology, exist within all government institutions – including the intelligence community. To dismiss this truism is to be intellectually dishonest. Our recent American history has provided us a clear reference in the example of President Obama weaponizing the DOJ, FBI and CIA to target his political opposition, Donald Trump.
One theory is that Jamal Khashoggi held a strong alignment with Brennan-minded U.S. intelligence officials, hence his working relationship with the Washington Post. Under this premise Khashoggi would be negotiating with officials inside Saudi for a meeting in Turkey specifically because the Pro-Iran sketchy Brennan types have close relationships with corrupt Turkish intelligence officials and could monitor closely.
After setting up the meeting at the Saudi consulate in Turkey and coordinating therein; U.S. and Turkish intelligence were closely monitoring the visit anticipating the outcome.
I believe the theory is plausible. Alwaleed definitely wanted to avenge his treatment by MSB and his probable loss of beau-coup assets as well as loss of influence with the US politicos. All three could have been avenged by whacking Kashaoggi…and as a bonus it put PDJT on the defensive with the Dems, MM, GOPe and Never Trumpers. And the Turks – well I don’t think the Turks like anyone except themselves. They would never pass up the opportunity to poke Uncle Sam in the eye.
Brennan-aligned Saudi ideologues like ostracized Prince Alweed Talal; who use massive amounts of money to corrupt U.S. politicians and intelligence officials; coordinated an opportunity to strike back at Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MbS) through the death of Khashoggi.
This theory would explain the outcome and massive attention therein.
One of the biggest ‘tells’ for me in this whole ordeal is that CIA director Haspel flew to Turkey. If this were a diplomatic incident involving a US citizen and a foreign government, then why would Haspel fly there to investigate?
My theory: Khashoggi was involved with the CIA as an asset.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
What is to be assured is that Khashoggi was a man deeply embedded in the global apparatus currently known as the Deep State. His death may be a carnie call to the stay-behinds still actively undermining US policy.
Reposted from Americanpartisan.org
Tinker, Tailor, Journalist, Spy: Jamal Khashoggi and the Story Not Being Told
On 2 OCT 2018, Washington Post journalist and middle eastern political activist Jamal Khashoggi went missing after entering the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Some in the course of the last news cycle has alleged this to be a much deeper incident than it appears on the surface; a vanished journalist, murder, international intrigue, a Saudi administration in conflict with Turkey; both jockeying for power in a region bound for widespread war in the coming years. Over a year post-living in exile after being banned from the Kingdom of al Saud, Khashoggi returned to the assumed security of the nation of his familial ancestry while continuing a career of revolutionary praxis through media in the mideast region. Needing a legal certificate of divorce from the Saudi government, Khashoggi felt safe approaching the embassy- in and out, no harm, no foul.
How wrong he was.
Embassies and consulates are nerve centers for declared spooks of a nation. Formal intelligence officers working in a nation must be declared. Journalists, on the other hand, can get placed into positions of unique access and are often conduits for sensitive information. In any country where intelligence operations are being run (and that’s all of them) a nation’s embassy serves as the hot spot for intelligence and in turn, counterintelligence. With Khashoggi, we find an example of split loyalty divided between revolutionary Marxism and a convenient ally found in the politics of revolutionary Islam. Possibly best examining this juxtaposition is his quote from a WaPo piece in late August:
The United States’ aversion to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is more apparent in the current Trump administration, is the root of a predicament across the entire Arab world. The eradication of the Muslim Brotherhood is nothing less than an abolition of democracy and a guarantee that Arabs will continue living under authoritarian and corrupt regimes. In turn, this will mean the continuation of the causes behind revolution, extremism and refugees — all of which have affected the security of Europe and the rest of the world. Terrorism and the refugee crisis have changed the political mood in the West and brought the extreme right to prominence there.
He goes on:
There can be no political reform and democracy in any Arab country without accepting that political Islam is a part of it. A significant number of citizens in any given Arab country will give their vote to Islamic political parties if some form of democracy is allowed. It seems clear then that the only way to prevent political Islam from playing a role in Arab politics is to abolish democracy, which essentially deprives citizens of their basic right to choose their political representatives.
…There are efforts here in Washington, encouraged by some Arab states that do not support freedom and democracy, to persuade Congress to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. If they succeed, the designation will weaken the fragile steps toward democracy and political reform that have already been curbed in the Arab world.
The point made by that last paragraph is critical. “Freedom and Democracy” is a common phrase touted by Marxian-inspired revolutionaries. And Islamist revolutionaries are exactly that. Thriving in the swamp of Washington DC, Khashoggi no doubt not only found himself among willing peers but cheerleaders among the Deep State apparatchik, with those ties neither recent nor random. His tale is one of deep alliances with what we now know of as the Deep State, made of the Marxist-inspired and academia-groomed bureaucracies of the Washington elite. The Muslim Brotherhood to which he refers is the revolutionary party of Egypt, spearheading the so-called “Arab Spring” which plunged the stable nation into chaos and directly endangered the control of the Suez Canal, keeping fuel prices affordable, in the hands of Islamists. Mohammed Morsi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, found a quite inviting home in the White House and among the leftist administration of Barack Hussein Obama. Wasting no time eliminating political rivals and religious minorities, most notably Coptic Christians, the Egyptian Army stepped in to remove the leftist cancer that had been installed as a proxy of the Obama administration.
Tracing the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization gets its guiding philosophy from Sayyid Qutb, a Western-educated Islamic cleric who came to seek strict reformation and removal of Western influence from the Islamic world. It is from Qutb that many early Islamic movements sprang and later ones would thrive; al Qaeda being most notable. And Khashoggi would find himself comfy bedfellows with al Qaeda’s revolutionary leader and fellow Saudi, Osama bin Laden. Traveling to Afghanistan to support bin Laden in the 80s, the New York Times notes:
…the war’s failure to put Afghanistan on sound footing haunted Mr. Khashoggi, as did Bin Laden’s later turn to terrorism.
“He was disappointed that after all that struggle, the Afghans never got together,” said a Saudi friend of Mr. Khashoggi’s who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
Mr. Khashoggi’s trips to Afghanistan and his relationship with Prince Turki al-Faisal, who headed Saudi intelligence, made some of Mr. Khashoggi’s friends suspect he was also spying for the Saudi government.
His connections with not only the Saudi intelligence apparatus but the larger revolutionary movements of the region becomes clear when examined further:
The friendship endured with Jamal Khashoggi following Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan. Khashoggi credited Adel Batterjee, listed at one time as one of “the world’s foremost terrorist financiers” by the Treasury Department, with bringing him to Afghanistan to report on the fighting.
The media calls Khashoggi a journalist, but his writings from 80s Afghanistan read as Jihadist propaganda with titles like, “Arab Mujahadeen in Afghanistan II: Exemplifies the Unity of Islamic Ummah”.
And when Osama bin Laden set up Al Qaeda, he called Khashoggi with the details.
After Afghanistan, Jamal Khashoggi went to work as a media adviser for former Saudi intel boss, Prince Turki bin Faisal, alleged to have links to Al Qaeda. Those allegations came from, among others, Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged twentieth hijacker.
When the other 19 hijackers perpetrated the attacks of September 11, Khashoggi wrote that the Saudis would not “give in” to American “demands” for “unconditional condemnation” and “total cooperation”.
“Saudis tend to link the ugliness of what happened in New York and Washington with what has happened and continues to happen in Palestine. It is time that the United States comes to understand the effect of its foreign policy and the consequences of that policy,” he declared.
“A Muslim cannot be happy with the suffering of others. Even if this suffering is that of Americans who neglected the suffering of Palestinians for half a century.”
The suspicion of him being a spy was likely true. The espionage of Khashoggi would be one of convenience and serving multiple masters however; living and working for that same revolutionary praxis, diverging only where he saw fit all the while running afoul of the established order of his nationsake. For Saudi Crown Prince bin Salman, his activities had not only grown counterproductive but a direct threat to the Kingdom- once there was a changing of the guard in Washington. As recently as 2016, Khashoggi was criticized for his close ties to both the Saudi intelligence apparatus and that of the Turkish government, with Bahraini media commenting on the issues in Cyprus noting,
Khashoggi seizes every opportunity to confirm his complete support for the Turkish role in the region. He is one of the public opinion makers having close ties with the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, who vigorously worked, through the media, on narrowing the Saudi-Turkish difference following the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood rule in Egypt, as well as promoting a partnership between the two countries based on leading the Sunni Muslims and supporting “Islamist Jihadists” in Syria. He is almost a frequent visitor of Turkey and his personal Twitter account is full of news about his meetings with Turkish Justice and Development Party officials and statements praising them and their policies in the region.
Post Saudi anti-corruption purge of 2018, Khashoggi likely had too many friends running counter to the intent of the Kingdom and thus became persona non grata. His troubles however surfaced early in the newly-minted regime of bin Salman’s father. After directly criticizing then President-elect Trump, Khashoggi was effectively muzzled before departing the nation in 2017, all the while not diverting from his revolutionary path and defaulting to his Deep State allies in the West and in Turkey. Suspected of being an agent for the failed Saudi ‘Arab Spring’, such a destabilization could not be tolerated.
This begs the question of just who would benefit from chaos in Saudi Arabia. Iran would for one, exploiting the blood feud between Shia and Sunni Islam while simultaneously uniting under one banner of Sharia; a prerequisite goal satisfying Tawhid, or unity under Allah before the Islamic Day of Return. Khashoggi did not share common ancestry nor ideology with the Persians however; he was at home with the restorationist Ottomans of Erdogan and the Turkish government. Vowing he is “he is personally “chasing” the investigation”, Turkish President Erdogan has taken personal issue with a matter among Saudi nationals. Turkey, seeking to expand their sphere of influence away from the Whabbism of the House of al Saud, would benefit most from destabilization of the Saudi Kingdom and thus explains their complicit support of many elements of Barrack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan and John Kerry’s failures in regime change.
What is to be assured is that Khashoggi was a man deeply embedded in the global apparatus currently known as the Deep State. His death may be a carnie call to the stay-behinds still actively undermining US policy. Leftist in both origin and ideology, Khashoggi’s role was change in the middle east assured by the hubris of aligned media outlets; a common home for burned spies with too much baggage. He was not protected as he so thought, he was not untouchable, and his story should not be the October surprise that drives a wedge between Trump and an otherwise strong economy through a rise in gas prices. Rogue operation or not, Khashoggi was an agent of the worst actors of the West and perished by the idiotic game he played. He should neither be mourned nor exalted as a martyr- he was nothing more than a pawn to those playing in the affairs of other nations. What is likely however may be a different issue altogether, signaling a larger power struggle throughout the Middle East. Erdogan is on the rise and seeking to expand his influence not only in the middle east but in Europe; he will no doubt use this to his advantage as the Turkish government already has done. Taking into account his strategic point into Europe and the Middle East, uneasy times are following.
My thoughts:
The media and uninformed politicians are beating the “punishment drum” regarding Saudi Arabia and the death of Jamal Khashoggi.
He is being portrayed as a “journalist”, a rather disingenuous description of the man.
There’s no justification for his murder. But don’t whitewash what he believed – his commitment to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, his long-standing association with Osama bin Laden and continuing connection to Islamic extremists.
In August, Jamal #Khashoggi wrote about the Muslim Brotherhood and the need to accept political Islam. The U.S. is wrong to ignore the Muslim Brotherhood — and the Arab world is suffering for it. Muslim Brotherhood! The same group led by Qaradawi who is advocating suicide bombers. Yeah sure, that is exactly what we need in the world and exactly why #Khashoggi is being be canonized by his fellow “Deep State” actors.
Khashoggi was a journalist like Jeffrey Dahmer was a chef.
There is more to this story.
Why grab him inside the embassy, when you could grab him on the street? Or in his hotel. Why dismember him inside your embassy, when you could do it inside a thousand different abandoned buildings?
Why would you fly the hit squad into Turkey on a business jet?
Either this is the most poorly planned hit of all time…or there is more to the story.
I smell a rat, or at least a very sinister mouse. But probably not the CIA rodents.
Brennan in particular would never push anything like – he’s a Muslim Brotherhood BFF. Nor Hillary. Her agenda was also pro-M.B., because that’s where the money was from her POV. Arms deals, from what I remember reading about the time of Benghazi.
Most of the info in our MSM is coming through Turkish news processors, which are very much pro-Brotherhood and anti the new Saudi regime. How much is true?
Could the Saudis be that crude about an assassination? I don’t want to think so, but the latest meme I’m seeing is that it was not authorized by the Prince. Apparently some underling is taking the fall for it, and it might actually be true that somebody went off the reservation.
Right or wrong, at this time the Saudis and the Egyptian military are the only sane Islamic actors in the M.E., so far as relations with the USA and Israel are concerned. Trump will have to make some noise to satisfy the jackals in our media corps, but nothing substantial will change, nor should it.
Listen to Brennans comments on the issue. “US govt fabricating story”. If no action by Saudi, US will have to act. MSM fed by CIA, FBI, all the rest.
Key words: Trump-“who ever” is behind this (Saudi not mentioned) will suffer severe consequences.
Most likely he knows who/what is. Hopefully he is just biding his time.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
Government programs replaced deprivation with idleness, stifling human flourishing. It happened just as President Franklin Roosevelt said it would: “The lessons of history,” he said in 1935, “show conclusively that continued dependency upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.”
“the poor you have with you always…”
–John 12:8
Fifty-four years ago, President Lyndon Johnson declared “unconditional war” on poverty.
“The War on Poverty is not a struggle simply to support people,” declared President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. “It is an effort to allow them to develop and use their capacities.” During the 20 years before the War on Poverty was funded, the portion of the nation living in poverty had dropped to 14.7% from 32.1%. Since 1966, the first year with a significant increase in antipoverty spending, the poverty rate reported by the Census Bureau has been virtually unchanged.
40 million Americans live in “squalor and deprivation. Welfare and the criminal justice system is effectively a system for keeping the poor in poverty according to “Progressive” think-tanks.
The Census Bureau counts as poor all people in families with incomes lower than the established income thresholds for their respective family size and composition.
The thresholds, first set in 1963, are based on a multiple of the cost of a budget for adequately nutritious food, adjusted for inflation.
While the Census Bureau reports that in 2016 some 12.7% of Americans lived in poverty, it is impossible to reconcile this poverty rate, which has remained virtually unchanged over the last 50 years, with the fact that total inflation-adjusted government-transfer payments to low-income families have risen steadily.
Transfers targeted to low-income families increased in real dollars from an average of $3,070 per person in 1965 to $34,093 in 2016.
The measured poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged only because the Census Bureau doesn’t count most of the transfer payments created since the declaration of the War on Poverty.
The bureau measures poverty using what it calls “money income,” which includes earned income and some transfer payments such as Social Security and unemployment insurance. But it excludes food stamps, Medicaid, the portion of Medicare going to low-income families, Children’s Health Insurance, the refundable portion of the earned-income tax credit, at least 87 other means-tested federal payments to individuals, and most means-tested state payments.
If government counted these missing $1.5 trillion in annual transfer payments, the poverty rate would be less than 3%.
The stated goal of the War on Poverty was not just to raise living standards, but also to make America’s poor more self-sufficient and to bring them into the mainstream of the economy.
In that effort the war has been an abject failure, increasing dependency and largely severing the bottom fifth of earners from the rewards and responsibilities of work.
The War on Poverty has increased dependency and failed in its primary effort to bring poor people into the mainstream of America’s economy and communal life.
There are three other factors:
1. A severe decline in the number of jobs that can be done by an unskilled or uneducated person, along with technologies that make it increasingly difficult for people on the margins to even apply for them.
2. The much greater gap between how far one income goes in terms of spending power and what it costs to actually live.
3. Badly handled programs that instead of encouraging part-time work and self-employment (the way most people who actually get out of poverty manage to do it) punish it; both by harsh regulations that discourage any sort of part-time work for fear of losing what benefits a person/family has and/or insane amounts of regulations and fees to set up any sort of small business or be “certified” for traditional jobs like hairdresser, home sewer, cookie baking or even taxi driver.
The idea of “Universal Basic Income” was supposed to “solve” this last problem but so far hasn’t worked very well (the idea is there are no penalties for making more money).
Government programs replaced deprivation with idleness, stifling human flourishing. It happened just as President Franklin Roosevelt said it would: “The lessons of history,” he said in 1935, “show conclusively that continued dependency upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.”
There is an economic truism; “You can’t get rid of something by subsidizing it.”
After fifty-four years of intense combat and the expenditure of almost uncountable wealth it would be accurate to say, the war is over. Poverty won.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
