How many of us remember this man and this speech?

That ‘intellectual elite’ about which Reagan spoke is in charge of the majority of our government and social institutions.  With the exception of our elected representatives, this ‘elite’ is self-appointed.  They have risen to power though nepotism and cronyism: both of which bely their claim to being ‘elite’ in the first place.  Were they truly superior, then they would have no need to take power through deception and corruption as they have; they could do it in the open, and the people would willingly support them.  But they do not run in the open.  They hide in the shadows and operate behind fronts such as ‘Move On’ and ‘The TIDES Foundation’ and ‘Black Lives Matter,’ and a host of other false faces.  So let us dispense with the notion that they are elite and call them what they really are: a cabal of corrupt and power-hungry individuals who have nothing but disdain for this nation and her People.  And they are not alone.  This cabal extends to the governments and social institutions of nearly the entire world, and it is they who are behind the push to repeal the American 2nd Amendment.

Make no mistake: this push is a deliberate, well thought out and highly coordinated attack on the Natural Rights of the American People.  The 2nd Amendment does not grant the individual the right to keep and bear arms: it merely acknowledges it and forbids the Federal and State governments from abridging this right.  It is an acknowledgment that the right to self-defense is a Natural Right, and therefore, an inalienable right.  It further acknowledges that a just government can have no authority over this Natural Right.  And again, make no mistake: that right does not only include the right to protect one’s life, the life of one’s family and one’s property, but also the right to defend one’s communist from outside threat.  This includes the threat of a tyrannical government, and it is why the founders used the word ‘arms’ and stated that this includes all the ‘terrible weapons of the common soldier,’ both defensive and offensive.  This is because the 2nd Amendment was and is still intended to ensure the People always retain the ability to resist a government that seeks to enslave them.

Now, it is popular for people to say that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated, and has no place in modern society.  These people would have you think that the police and the military will protect you, and therefore, you have no need to protect yourself or the nation.  But they never tell you that they have excused the police from any duty to protect you through their corrupt courts.  That is a fact.  The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the police have no duty to protect the individual or their property.  Their only purpose is to pick up your dead body, collect evidence and try to apprehend the people who killed and/or stole from you.  As for the notion that the military will protect you: well, they don’t tell you the whole story there, either.  The military has been turned against the American People many times.  In New Orleans, it was used to collect the legally owned weapons of law abiding citizens without warrant or cause.  They never got them back.  This is just one example.  There are more.  And this does not address the fact that there are many extra-Constitutional para-military forces within the various levels of government disguised as ‘law enforcement.’  Nor does it mention that all of these forces are controlled not by the People, but by this ‘elite’ that has usurped control over nearly every aspect of America and its People.  No, they never mention or even acknowledge any of this.  They simply act as though no one has any need to fear them because they have our best interests in mind.  Well, if that were true, they would have no need to hide any of this, now would they?

Then there are the coordinating voices calling for gun control in the media, our schools and our entertainment industry.  All of these people push a carefully constructed narrative intentionally designed to lead all but the most free-thinking truth seekers to one ultimate conclusion: that we really would be safer if the 2nd Amendment were repealed.  But this is propaganda.  It is propaganda because it does not tell the entire story.  First of all, they never address the real reason for the 2nd Amendment: to prevent people like themselves from being able to trap the American People under their tyrannical rule.   And to those who doubt they wish to rule, and rule by force if necessary, I would point them to the way they destroy people they once praised simply because they oppose the ‘elitist’ agenda.  If they will do this with the 2nd Amendment still in force, what will they be like if it is repealed?  Then there are all the supposed ‘facts’ they present about gun control.  When they compare numbers, they never mention the millions of crimes stopped or prevented by private gun owners every year.  Nor do they do any calculus on how many of the lives that are lost to gun violence which may have been saved had private citizens been allowed to carry their weapons.  How many of these gun-related deaths would have been prevented without gun control?  Finally, we have the different nations these ‘elite’ like to use as examples of how well gun control works.  They never tell you that Australia has done studies that found their gun control laws have had no significant affect on violent crime and suicide, do they?  Nor do they mention how knife attacks and other forms of violent killing have gone up in England — especially London.  Do they mention how high the murder rates with knives and bats are in Mexico?  Or the increasing use of bombs and cars or trucks to kill people in these nations they set up as examples?  NO!  They ignore all of it because, for propaganda to work, he narrative must be tightly controlled and repeatedly pounded into the audiences’ heads.

There’s more.  We have not addressed factors such as mental health, law enforcement deliberately ignoring the warnings of friends and family and the role of violent video games and music.  These are all factors the ‘elite’ ignore or down-play, and none of them have anything to do with the gun.  In fact, the ‘elite’ never even acknowledge that the problem is the heart of the person using the gun.  They simply focus on the thing and use it to terrify the People.  How is that not terrorism?  It is the incitement of fear for political gain.  That is the very definition of terrorism.  So, given all of this, we should ask ourselves why there is such a push to take away America’s guns?  What are they really after?  Well, let’s consider England.

In England, they are now banning knives and putting warning labels on butter knives.  I have heard they are even talking about waiting lists to buy silverware?  They are apparently stopping people at random on the streets and searching them for weapons, or anything perceived to be a weapon.  They are putting people in jail for face Book posts and even for flipping off a traffic camera.  YES!  I have read actual news reports about this.  And now?  Now the government has a judge who declared that a baby who needs medical treatment is not a person and should be denied food and water so it will die.  They have denied other nations who have volunteered to treat the child the right to do so.  They won’t even let the parents take their child home.  No, the government has claimed ownership of this child, declared it is no longer human and condemned it to death — all because the government declared this child to be a burden on the health care system.  Folks, this is the exact same thing as Hitler’s T4 program.  Look it up.  it is what lead to the death camps, and England has started down that exact same road.  Now, what can the English People do about any of this?  Not mush.  They can vote for people to stop it, but when the system only gives them choices between this self-appointed ‘elite’ or that one, they still get another tyrant in office.  No, they have nothing they can do but accept their fate.  But this is not the case in America!

This sort of thing has also started in the U.S., but we still have the 2nd Amendment.  When the government tried to steal hundreds of cows from a rancher out West, the People stopped the government using their personal weapons.  There are other cases where the People have resisted government tyranny, as well.  This nation was born of such a resistance.  This is why the ‘elite’ want to repeal the 2nd Amendment: because it is the last thing standing in their way of seizing total power over the American People.

Now, consider this.  This ‘elite’ who have seized power in America sympathizes with Marx.  They want open boarders and redistribution of America’s wealth.  They don’t just want Socialism, they want Communism.  Hillary even said so, it’s just that no one is educated in this country anymore, so the American People did not understand what she was saying.  When Hillary said she was an early Twentieth Century Progressive, she was saying she is a Communist.  Woodrow Wilson even explained it in his essays on Progressivism, Government and Administration.  So, if a person has any understanding of history — especially the history of Communism — and they envision an America where the 2nd Amendment has been repealed, how can they imagine that anyone like Trump will ever be elected again?  he won’t, because the pretenses will be dropped, the GOP will stop pretending to be an opposition Party, and the One-Party system will take over total control of the American government and Society.  And sine this ‘Progressive’ Party is Communist, and they are in bed with Communist nations such as Russia, China, Venezuela and Cuba, there is no doubt they will pursue similar agendas as their allies in these nations.  What, then, would this mean for the rest of Europe?  Without America to support them, how long before Putin just demands Europe abdicates their sovereignty to him?  And do you really doubt this will happen?

Without the 2nd Amendment, the people who will seize total control over America will also turn on Israel.  These American ‘elite’ are also in bed with Islam.  This is well documented using public sources (see Horowitz’s “Unholy Alliance”).  If America suddenly switches sides in the Middle East, how long will it be before Israel is forced to use nuclear weapons to protect itself?  And if Russia and most likely America are aligned with the Arab nations, what is the likelihood that this exchange will remained contained?  And what of Europe in this case?  If the Arabs are nuked by Israel, how is the Muslim population in Europe going to react?  And who will support Europe if there is an uprising?

Seriously, dear reader, if the 2nd Amendment is lost, how long do you think America will remain ‘good?’  What will stop the new rulers from banning Christianity?  Or putting Conservatives in jail for voicing opposition to them?  It has happened before.  Wilson did it, FDR did it.  Obama was allowed to use the IRS and FBI against his enemies.  Now the FBI is being used to destroy a duly elected President.  How much worse will this all get when they know there is nothing the People can do to stop them?  And if you think this won’t happen…  Well, I suggest you study history a little closer — even modern Western history — because it has happened and will happen again.  It always happens.  So, when America turns dark — and it will — what becomes of the rest of the world?  I am serious.  Ask yourself that question.  What becomes of the rest of the world if America looses the 2nd Amendment?

Have you seen the news about the judge who recently ruled that President Trump cannot end the DACA program?  That ruling is unlawful.  It should be vacated and the judge should be impeached and — possibly — charged with and tried for subversion. But there are two issues here.  The first is a coordinated act of subversion on the part of the States, Courts and many politicians.  The second is a judge who has assumed the authority to aplply one set of rules to one Political Party, and another set of rules to the other.  Let’s start with the greater issue first: subversion.

Levin: ‘This is judicial tyranny. You’re viewing it now.’

We do not need to be lawyers or Constitutional ‘experts’ to see that this judge has exceeded his authority.  All we need to do is apply logic and common sense to the wording of the Constitution.  Let’s start with the only language in the Constitution related to immigration:

Article I, Section 8, Line 4

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

OK, this does not address immigration, therefore, we should assume that immigration is not under the authority of the Federal government.  I understand that they passed laws placing immigration under Federal control, but those laws are — themselves — unconstitutional.  In order to grant the federal government authority over something that is not specifically authorized in the Constitution, that area must be added by Amendment, not the passing of a law.  This means that the Federal government never had control over who was allowed into the States and, therefore, it still should not have that authority.  But look at what is addressed!

The Constitution grants the authority to regulate naturalization.  What does this mean?

NATURALIZATION, noun [See Naturalize] The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native subject or citizen. naturalization in Great Britain is only by act of parliament. In the United States, it is by act of Congress, vesting certain tribunals with the power.

Therefore, Congress does have control over the process by which a person becomes a citizen and, by this process, is granted the privileges of citizenship.  One of those privileges is the right to vote.  This means that any illegal alien who votes is breaking the law, and any State or political organization that encourages and/or helps illegals vote is also breaking the law.  This is also found in the Constitution:

Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Next question: what does the Constitution mean by a ‘republican form of government?’  Well, look up what ‘republic’ meant at the time and apply that to the form of government in the several States:

REPUB’LIC, noun [Latin respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]

1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

We can keep playing these definition games, but that shouldn’t be necessary — not for any intellectually honest person seeking to understand this issue.  It should already be clear that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate naturalization and to insure a republican form of government.  The ‘People’ of the States does not refer to any and all human beings living within a State, but to the citizens of those States.  We know this because the Constitution addresses the rights of citizens as opposed to aliens living within a State:

Article IV, Section 2

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

14th Amendment, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Finally, a citizen is defined as:

CITIZEN, noun

1. The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides; the freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.

Clearly, a citizen is someone who is differentiated from a non-citizen.  The Constitution defines a citizen as someone born in the United States, or who has been naturalized.  Congress has sole authority over the process of naturalization.  If anyone other than a citizen votes, this violates the right to a republican form of government as it destroys the concept of ‘representation’ by allowing non-citizens to participate in the government.  To illustrate this in the extreme, if non-citizens are allowed to vote, then the people of the world might as well all vote in our nation’s various elections.  No!  The Constitution is clear: only citizens can vote, and a citizen is a person who is born in this country or who has been properly naturalized.

This then means that anyone — anyone — who advocates, supports, encourages or makes it possible for a non-citizen to vote is in violation of the Constitution.  Furthermore, if the case of political organizations and especially representatives and servants of the people, such an act would also constitute subversion (and in the case of public representatives and servants, a violation of their oaths).  This judge should know all of this, which means he not only violated the Constitution, but he did so willingly.  Furthermore, this judge presumed authority not granted to him by the Constitution.  In fact, he presumed the authority to usurp authority rightly given to the Congress.  This is why the judge should be removed and prosecuted for subversion.  However, we should not stop with this one judge.  We should go after all judges, politicians, and bureaucrats who have acted– in any way — to enable illegals to vote.  We should also charge any and all organizations that have provided assistance toward this end with subversion and, upon demonstrating that they have actually helped illegals to vote, we should dissolve those organizations and prosecute their leadership.  This would be the lawful way to deal with this systematic and coordinated act of organized subversion.

Fortunately, dealing with the favoritism in this specific ruling is much easier.  DACA was established by a stroke of President Obama’s pen.  This means President Trump can change or eliminate it with the stroke of a pen.  If Trump does not have such authority — as this judge claims — then Obama did not have the authority to establish DACA in the first place.  That then means DACA is unlawful and should be eliminated on that ground.  But, if Obama is going to be assumed to have had that authority, then Trump must also have the authority to change or eliminate it.  If not, the judge is committing another act of subversion by trying to usurp the President’s authority to himself and the Court.  Therefore, Trump should either be allowed to do as he wishes with DACA, or DACA should be ended on the grounds that it is unconstitutional (incidentally, DACA actually is unconstitutional.  It carries the weight of law, and, therefore, must originate in Congress.  No President has any authority to create anything that carries the weigh of law.  That would be an unconstitutional usurping of Congressional authority to the Executive.)

Either way, this ruling should be vacated and the judge removed from the bench, disbarred and prosecuted for subversion.  Anything less is to suborn lawlessness, and lawlessness by the government is — by definition — tyranny!

NOTICE: See how we were able to figure this out without the need for a single lawyer, Constitutional ‘expert’ or ‘authority’ of any type?  That is the way the Constitution was supposed to work, and that is the way it should still work.  Otherwise, if we need others to tell us what the Constitution means, then this is not a republic, nor is there is any principle of democracy in our government.  If we have to have authorities tell us what the law means, then we live under tyranny — plain and simple.  But one can only live under tyranny if one chooses to do so, and yes!  One has a choice!  There may be a high cost associated with that choice, but one most certainly has a choice in whether or not they will submit to other humans as their lords and masters.

Anyone with Spiritual eyes can take one look at the United States and tell that something is very, very wrong.  Everywhere we look, people seem to be losing their minds.  Insanity and lawlessness is everywhere.  We have people with XY chromosomes insisting they are female, and people with XX chromosomes insisting they are male, and some of both waiting to see how they ‘feel’ each morning to decide what they will be that day.  We ignore  Presidents who lie to us about things like high treason and deliberate subversion of our system of government, but we become obsessed over allegations of Presidential wrong-doing — even after a year-long investigation shows that the people who made the allegations were the ones who broke the law, not the President.  We have children on anti-psychotic drugs shooting up schools and law enforcement agencies ignoring family warnings that this would happen, but instead of dealing with our growing mental health crisis and flaws in law enforcement, we call for a gun ban.  We have people in designer clothing, drinking Star Bucks and texting on an Apple I-Phone demanding socialism w3ithout ever understanding what that would mean for everything they were wearing, drinking and using at that time.  We have people insisting that this is a racist nation, even when the President, several of our richest entrepreneurs, many idolized athletes and quite a few of our most admired entertainers are all black.  We’re even teaching children to do math in a way that requires a ream of paper and half a day to add a few numbers where the old way made it possible to do in your head in a few seconds.  Sexual morality is nearly non-existent, family is re-defined on an ongoing basis, crime is re-defined so as to make what used to be illegal, legal and what was once legal, illegal — thereby adding lawful people to the ranks of criminals and removing life-long criminals from the same rolls.  All this and I have just started to scratch the surface.  As I said: something is definitely wrong with our society!

So, what is it?  What happened to change everything?  Well, there is an answer to this question, and we can actually trace it to its source.  It started a decade or two before the turn of the Twentieth Century, with the rise of what we in the United States call Progressivism.  Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, and Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, gave it this name.  But Wilson was the one who confessed that it is known by other names in Europe.  Over there, they call it Socialism, Fascism and Communism.  But, no matter what the name, the result is the same: it is a deliberate attempt to re-make the world according to human desires — and to force humans to conform to the desires of those doing the shaping, or die.  In short, Progressivism is nothing short of man playing god, as Progressive founder, John Dewey, said when he wrote these words:

“The teacher is engaged not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life…. In this way, the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer-in of the true Kingdom of God.”

Dewey was saying that man is his own god, and that he can shape his own evolution, and that the teacher was the primary means by which this change would be affected.  Read his work, you’ll find this is an accurate description of not only his beliefs, but of most the Progressives — even today.  For the Progressive, the individual must be loyal to society above all, and since the State is society, the individual must submit themselves entirely to the State.  Only by doing this can the individual find their true purpose and a sense of fulfillment.  Again, read the early Progressives.  You will find that I am not miss-quoting them or painting them in a way with which they would not agree.  This is because some of them actually said that this is what they believed, and they used words almost identical to mine.

Now, for those who do not already know, and for those who do not believe in or who reject the Bible,  the prophetic language defines a pagan kingdom or government as a ‘beast.’    By trying to make people submit themselves to the State, to find their meaning in the State and to find fulfillment in the State, the Progressive is essentially telling people to worship the State.  This means the Progressive is trying to force people to worship a beast.  Now, setting aside the prophetic implications of this revelation and just consider why the Bible may have used this term to refer to a pagan system of government.

[NOTE: in reality, Progressives want people to worship them, as they always see themselves as being — sooner or later — in charge of the State.  Therefore, if people can be made totally dependent on the State, they are — by extension — totally dependent on them, and that is the equivalent of being god.  This applies to all man-made systems of government that do not comply with Natural Law, and it is why all such systems always but always fail!  It is because they violate Natural law and — eventually — Natural Law asserts itself and the lawlessness is erased.]

Now, just for the sake of argument, assume that there is a Creator and that he did make this world to operate by a fixed set of laws and that among those laws is a universal moral standard of right and wrong.  Let’s also assume that this moral standard deals not only with the way individuals treat each other, but also with things such as the proper way to run society and its government.  If the Creator set these laws, then the ‘civil’ society as well as the ‘just’ government would be those that operate according to the Creator’s laws.  But what of the society and/or government that tries to operate according to the desires of man?  Well, if they are not in accord with the Creator’s laws, then they will not be ‘civil,’ and to not be ‘civil’ is to be barbaric, or savage — like a beast.  Hence, the society or government that does not operate in accordance with the Creator’s laws would be like a beast.  Now ask yourself: what would be the effect if a wild beast were allowed to run around freely in ‘civil’ society and the people were not allowed to stop it or even defend themselves from it?  Well, at the very least, society is likely to fall apart, right?

If Natural Law — as our founders understood it — is real, and there is actually something to the notion of a Creator and His universal moral laws of right and wrong, then we should be able to find some evidence to support this conclusion.  Well, as it happens, we can — and we need look no farther than our own nation.  Remember, the Progressives want everyone to worship the government.  So, when we kick God out of the public square and replace it with government decrees, this is what we get in return:

I hope you watched all of the video.  If so, did you like the part where the founders said religion was necessary to liberty?  Or how about the part where Jefferson affirms the superiority of the Judea/Christian ethic as the best religion for a free and self-governing people?  And what of the evidence?  Did you notice how all the social indicators spiked upward, and that they did so from the very point where we finally kicked God out of our schools?  That is called a correlation, my friend.

Now, this may be a correlation, but correlations are not proof of causation.  However, when you have such a strong correlation, and such a consistent pattern in all the various social indicators matching up to the same point or cause, that strongly suggests causation.  For example: take the case of school shootings.  Before we kicked God out of our schools, students used to be allowed to store loaded weapons in their lockers and we did not have these mass shootings.  The suicide rates among all age groups was also lower — much lower than today.  Oh!  And we did not have the same degree of mental illness in our schools, either.  All of these problems were demonstrably smaller before the point where we kicked God out of the public square.

We can no longer say that these social indicators are under control in our modern society.  The same goes for sexual immorality, family cohesion, and even the ability to just be civil toward one another.  Instead, we have re-defined normalcy and eliminated the notion of deviancy all together. All of these things can be traced back to that one point in our history.  So, why are we never told about any of this?  Why do we try to erase them by re-defining them and banning any talk of them instead?  Well, you can draw your own conclusions, but I would suggest it is because a great many people would look at the evidence and conclude that the founders were right, the Progressives are wrong, and that the Creator’s laws are still in effect.  If that were to happen with too many people, the Progressive movement would be over — at least for the next two or three generations, anyway.  If there is one universal truth about all Progressives, it is that Progressives simply will not give up power without a fight!  Even when they lose an election, they simply refuse to accept it and behave as though they had won and the People are behind them.  And this is because the illusion cannot be broken.  They will even accept what they know to be a lie — their own lie — just to preserve the illusion of the world they are trying to create.

Therefore, you cannot be permitted to hear and consider the information in this video.  It’s simply too dangerous to the establishment.  If you were to see it, research it further and reflect on the information it presents, you might free yourself from the Progressive illusion, and a free mind is among the most dangerous things that can be let lose in the Progressive Matrix:

“Anyone who has begun to think, places some portion of the world in jeopardy.”

— John Dewey

Congress called Faceboook CEO, Mark Zuckergbr, to ‘testify‘ today regarding Facebook’s role in the Cambridge University data mining ‘scandal.’  I say ‘testify‘ because — according to reports — Zuckergerb was not placed under oath.  This means he was not under any threat of perjury, which means he was free to say whatever he wished.  I say ‘scandal‘ because — in spite of claims to the contrary — people praised the Obama campaign for their ‘technical savvy’ when they were allowed to ‘suck up’ the whole of Facebook’s user data to help Obama win his elections.  This means the people at the highest levels of our government are picking and choosing who has ‘broken’ the law.  In truth, what we saw today was less about fact finding or the rule of law and more about putting on a good piece of political theater.  I suppose we could all just shrug it off as just that — an act — but there is just one problem.  This business is deadly deadly serious.  What we are witnessing is nothing less than a slide into a draconian tyranny very similar to that in George Orwell’s book, “1984.”

So, what is actually going on here and how can we know what the truth is?  Well, we can start by asking ourselves why Zuckerberg was never put under oath.  Unless a person is sworn in, then the appearance of anything resembling the rule of law is just that: an appearance.  That person is free to lie at will and there is nothing that can be done to them.  So, the question remains: why wasn’t Zuckerberg put under oath?  Well, this might have something to do with it:

Facebook Gave Money To 85% Of The House Committee “Questioning” Zuckerberg Next Week

The next thing we should ask ourselves is what laws Cambridge Analytical actually broke?  So far as I have been able to determine, Cambridge Analytica did not actually break any laws, nor violate any Facebook policies.  And, if it is a violation of Facebook policy for one party to sell Facebook data to a third party, then Facebook should be going after the company that sold the information to Cambridge Analytica, not Cambridge Analytica, itself.  This is because the seller would be in violation, not the buyer, and Cambridge was the buyer.  Furthermore, Cambridge Analytica has explained its position and it seems quite reasonable:

Cambridge Analytica denies breaking any laws in data scandal

Data analytics firm says it licensed Facebook user data from a company that obtained it legally.

Facebook has said that a Cambridge University lecturer named Aleksandr Kogan collected the data legitimately through a personality quiz app but then violated Facebook’s terms by sharing the information with Cambridge Analytica, a firm later hired by the Trump presidential campaign during the 2016 US election.

From this, it would appear that the information was obtained legally.  But there is something else here that I suspect is the answer we seek.  Did you notice this line?

…a firm later hired by the Trump presidential campaign during the 2016 US election.

There is the real motivation behind this entire ‘scandal:’ Trump used Facebook to help him win the 2016 election.  This whole thing is part of the on-going campaign to destroy a duly elected President simply because he represents an opposition to the political agenda of the Left.  But how can we ‘prove’ this is actually the case?   Well, we can prove it indirectly by looking at what is being ignored and/or left out of this whole equation.

The problem here for the Left is the fact that Facebook actually helped the Obama campaign ‘suck up’ a great deal more of Facebook’s user data than Cambridge Analytica gathered.  And where Trump used the data in his primary, Obama actually used it to influence the general election.  What’s more, Facebook most likely broke the law.  In fact, it may have broken several laws.  However, nothing was said about this at the time.  Why?  The answer is simple: Obama and Facebook are both on the Left.

If you will remember, at the time the Obama campaign was ‘sucking up’ all our user data off Facebook, they were being praised for their ‘technical savvy:’

Funny, When Obama Harvested Facebook Data On Millions Of Users To Win In 2012, Everyone Cheered

In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends.

According to a July 2012 MIT Technology Review article, when you installed the app, “it said it would grab information about my friends: their birth dates, locations, and ‘likes.’ “

The campaign boasted that more than a million people downloaded the app, which, given an average friend-list size of 190, means that as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent.

If anything, Facebook made it easy for Obama to do so. A former campaign director, Carol Davidsen, tweeted that “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.”

This means, if you downloaded this app without asking your friends if they wanted their information shared, that was just too bad for your friends: Obama got their information anyway. This means Facebook knowingly allowed the Obama campaign to take its users’ information without their knowledge or consent, and free of charge.  Then, when a company they sold some user information to turns around and sells that information to a third party working for the Trump campaign, Facebook and the government are suddenly worried about the privacy of its users.There is a clear double standard here, and the common denominator is that ‘Conservatives’ are censured for using data for which they paid while ‘Liberals’ are allowed to use data given to them without charge or user knowledge.

Still, we need to keep going.  We need to see if we have evidence that the Obama campaign was given this information — without the user’s knowledge or approval — and that data was then used to target these users for political advertisement.  Luckily, these people like to boast, so we have a great deal of evidence suggesting this is exactly what happened.  According to the Obama campaign, their use of taking user data and using it to target individuals was more than 75% effective in getting those targets to vote for Obama.  Obama didn’t pay for this data or the adds, Facebook just ‘allowed’ them to take the data, then use Facebook to send their political messaging.  This is called a ‘donation in kind’ and it is illegal on several counts.  And, as I said, the Obama people boasted about it:

Now, I understand that this woman claims individuals were not targeted, but — honestly — that is a bald faced lie!  Watch the whole video: she admits they collected information on people — often without them even knowing about it — then used that information to ‘target’ them — through their friends — for political adds.  That is not only targeting, it is a ‘campaign contribution in kind.’  It is assisting a political campaign by giving it something of real monetary value.  In this case, that was the data on Facebook’s users as well as the political videos and emails.  This is essentially the same thing for which Mueller apparently wants to prosecute Cohen, President Trump’s attorney.  Only, in the case of Cohen, it may well have been part of a normal, on-going business practice for Cohen.  That is yet to be determined.  But, in the case of Facebook, it was a deliberate act — by Facebook — to aid the Obama campaign — and on a much, much larger scale than anything they claim Cohen may or may not have done.  Again, in the case of Facebook, the crime was not only ignored, it was cheered by Obama supporters of all types:

Did Facebook Break The Law To Help Obama Win In 2012?

Apparently, Facebook knew its user data was being harvested en masse, but didn’t care….

She also said that Facebook officials came to the campaign offices after the election recruiting Obama’s tech team, and that “they were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”

This wasn’t entirely new news, by the way. The New York Times reported in 2013, in another glowing piece on Obama’s tech team, how “The campaign’s exhaustive use of Facebook triggered the site’s internal safeguards.” Facebook’s response, according to one campaign official: “They’d sigh and say, ‘You can do this as long as you stop doing it on Nov. 7.'”

That’s where the potential legal trouble starts. Despite all the hosannas for Obama’s technical prowess, the arrangement between the campaign and Facebook might have been outside the law.

According to Heritage Foundation election expert Hans von Spakovsky, federal law “bans corporations from making ‘direct or indirect’ contributions to federal candidates.”

I understand many people will claim that the Obama campaign did not break the law, and neither did Facebook.  This is where the Mueller attack on Cohen enters into the equation.  If Cohen violated campaign finance laws by paying a porn star to remain silent about  an alleged affair with Donald Trump, then the ‘contribution in kind’ (i.e. monetary value) Facebook gave to the Obama campaign most certainly violated those same laws.  This is because, if Cohen was donating to the Trump campaign by paying someone in a legal settlement,  then the monetary value of what Facebook allowed the Obama campaign to do (which would have been in the $Millions) is also a campaign donation!  Furthermore, this doesn’t even address the possibility of Facebook breaking the law mentioned by the Heritage Foundation.  There are two different laws in question, but neither has even been mentioned, let alone investigated.  Since it was known that Obama and Facebook colluded to do this, why, then, is the Federal government going after Cohen for doing the same thing, only in a much smaller way, but not Facebook or Obama?

Unfortunately, this is not the biggest problem with this story.  Zuckerberg has clearly chosen a political side in the public debate, and he is using his company to wage a political war against anyone who holds an opinion with which he disagrees.  There is no question that Zuckerberg has been setting his company policy to justify silencing politically opposing voices on Facebook.  There is no question that Zuckergeberg has allowed supporting voices to remain on Facebook — even when they fall under the government guidelines for ‘hate speech’ or actually advocate or openly call for violence.  This has all been well documented.  However, as bad as this practice is, it is not the worse part of this story.

It is now apparent to any rational observer that the Federal government has also chosen sides.  Not only have Obama and Zuckerberg been given a pass (yes, if Zuckerberg is guilty, then, as the head of his campaign, so is Obama), but Hillary, her campaign and her lawyers have also been allowed to walk away from numerous felonies.  As we now know, the ‘supposed’ investigation into Hillary’s illegal servers was yet another political play.  She was given immunity before or at the time she was interviewed and well before any conclusion could have been drawn. She was also protected from an investigation into her selling of U.S. uranium to the Russians in return for political favors and/or campaign donations.  What’s more, she was protected by the very same people who are now trying to pin collusion charges on President trump.

Now consider this: many past scandals where the government was allowed to break the law are actually related to this Facebook story.  Obama used the IRS to target political enemies.  When Nixon tried to do this, the media and the government went after him — and rightfully so.  But this time, since the media and the ‘Deep State’ are now openly siding with the political Left in America, Obama was defended and the crime was ignored.  We had public evidence that Obama and Hillary were giving military aid to Al Qaeda in Libya and to ISIS in Syria, but that was never even mentioned in the media.    We even saw our President ad State Department put an innocent man in jail to cover up for their gun running.  There were crimes committed in every one of these cases, but there we no real investigations, the media sided with the Left, and nothing happened.  But, somehow, we have time to go after someone for allegedly having an affair with a porn star years before they ran for office?  I’m sorry, but I seem to remember that many of the people going after Trump for his affair were the very same people telling us that sex doesn’t mean anything — even when the President is doing an intern with a cigar in the oval office (for you younger readers, this is exactly what Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky).  I’m sorry for those who cannot see it, but there is a clear double-standard here, and it crosses the line of credulity.

As I said: any rational person who looks upon our government can draw only one reasonable conclusion: the U.S. government has chosen sides.  I know that some will say that the reason no one has gone after people on the Left is because they haven’t broken any laws, but any such claims would be in contradiction with what are now known facts!  The truth is, nearly every part of the Federal government has been weaponized and, now, it is being used to destroy anyone who is perceived to be a threat to the Deep State.  To add fuel to this fire, the government is also coordinating with our schools and media to launch a campaign aimed at disarming the American people.  Anyone with a decent grasp of history can do the math on this equation.  What do you get when you have a One-Party system that has been integrated into the nation’s schools and media and together, they have all been weaponized and turned on any and all political opposition while, at the same time, that government and its allies in the schools and media are trying to disarm the people…  Well, let’s be honest with ourselves, shall we: it points to a growing tyranny — at the very least.

Dear reader, do not kid yourself: the rule of law is dead in the United States, and the Facebook story is just the latest in a chain of evidence showing this to be true.  We may look at it and think it is nothing more than partisan politics, or ‘the hypocrisy of the other side,’ but it is more than that — much more!  It is evidence that they no longer care to even keep up the appearance of objectivity.  Heck, even the notion of ‘democracy’ is dead.  Sure, the Left talks about ‘democracy,’ but look at what is happening here.  We have the Federal government, our schools and the media all working together for the stated purpose of overturn a duly elected President.  That is not democracy, it is subversion!  We are witnessing a massive explosion of lawlessness in this country, and — if left un-checked — it will destroy us.  But then, that is actually the stated goal of the people pushing this attack on the rule of law: to destroy America as founded so they can remake it closer to their hearts’ desires.  We are living under a soft tyranny: we have been for a while now.  This can no longer be denied, not by any rational person who knows and understands history, anyway.  The question before us now is, how much longer before this soft tyranny turns hard?  And make no mistake: it will turn hard.  As soon as they convince themselves that they have destroyed the last vestiges of ‘the rule of law‘ in this country, or they convince enough people that the rule of law is ‘old and antiquated and needs to be replaced,’ or both, they will throw off the last of their masks and openly move to take over this nation.