I no longer know how to write about what I am seeing in our nation. I try to use facts and reason to call people to their senses, but I do not see how it does any good. Yes, I know this is a small blog, but I also know that there are only a few of you out there who seem to get anything from it. For the most part, I might as well be preaching to the wind. I would do about as much good.
Look, for the last twenty years, I have made my living off the history of WW II. I have a degree in philosophy with a special interest in law and political theory. I have spent a great deal of time studying the events that lead to Adolf Hitler and the NAZI’s. I have also spent a great deal of time studying tyranny and the founding of the United States. I know the signs, and I see them all around me. But that is not what frightens me. No, the part that frightens me is that I also see my fellow citizens clamoring for their own destruction.
It pains me to say this, but I finally understand how the German people went willingly down the path to insanity — praising Hitler as their god the whole way. I understand because I am watching this nation do it again, now, here — right before my very eyes.
Folks, I want you to stop and watch this video. It’s only two minutes long. Please, watch the whole thing.
OK, in addition to the background I have already given you, I was a U.S. Marine for nine years. I have sen combat. Something the Marines taught me, a lesson I have never forgotten: honor the threat!
This means, when a person tells you they are going to do something, believe them and respond accordingly!
Well, this woman spends two minutes telling this audience that she has to get and do everything on her agenda — no matter what! Yes, she says ‘we,’ but that is a lie. She means ‘Me.’ Then she says, if there are people who are harmed in the process of getting what she wants (that is what collateral damage means), well, ‘So be it!’
THAT IS A THREAT TO ANY AND ALL WHO REFUSE TO BOW TO HER AND HER AGENDA!!!
When she tells you they are going to take care of your economic prosperity while — at the same time — pushing their radical Socialist agenda — SHE IS LYING! It literally cannot be done. There is not enough money in the entire world to do it. Besides, that is not what her agenda is designed to do. He agenda is designed to reduce you to such poverty that you must depend on her to survive.
Nor does it seem to matter to anyone that there has never been a single example of a successful socialist economy — NEVER! Socialism is an impossibility, a pipe dream. It violates all laws of economics. This is why it always ends in Elysium, and Pelosi plans to be with those in the perfect, immoral, space-based utopia while you and I struggle just to survive in the ruins she leaves behind on earth.
Anyone who tries to tell you I am wrong is lying — period! I am accurately reporting the history of these people — right down to the hundreds of millions they have murdered on their way to remaking the universe to their heart’s desire. Remember, ‘collateral damage’ — that is you — is acceptable. All that matters is their goal of control.
Oh! And about those Scandinavian countries. They are not Socialist. They are Capitalist Welfare States — and they have said so! But then, what do they know about their own countries? They need to just agree to what Nancy and her crew say they are or suffer the fate of becoming collateral damage, too.
There are many people out there who are killing themselves trying to explain this with facts and logic and sound reason, but no one listens. So why should I try to reach them. Those people cannot resist the allure of a false promise of free stuff, which is why they can’t be reached by logic and reason. They are little more than chattel, but chattel enough to vote the lot of us into tyranny — AND PELOSI KNOWS IT!
Worse, she is taking our money — the money from those who actually produce more than they consume — and using it to bribe these lemmings into voting the rest of us into slavery. This is akin to boiling a kid in its mother’s milk: the very source that is supposed to sustain it is used to kill it. How much more evil can such people possibly be? And what does this say for those who ignore every warning they are given in order to cling to this evil?
And yet, no one seems to care. Well, it is a good thing I am not ‘king for a day.’ Otherwise, this is how I think I might handle this worthless nation:
I have never understood why — when under attack or pushing their agenda — the political leadership of the American Left, as well as their supporters, always seem to act in lock-step. No matter what the issue, or how clearly they may be in the wrong, they simply cannot be broken. Even when it appears as if they are eating their own, their focus on their ultimate objectives never falters. The leadership and supporters always but always work together to achieve their goal of control.
At the same time, even if the accused has done nothing wrong, the American political Right will turn on their own in a heartbeat. Neither can they agree on anything, be that agenda or tactics for achieving the same. Trying to get the American Right to agree to work together on anything is like trying to herd cats. Have you ever tried to get three cats to go in the same direction at the same time? Try it with 30 or 40 and see how that goes. It is the same way with trying to get the American political Right to stick together on any issue.
I have never understood why this seems to be the case — until now. I was doing some research for another post I am contemplating when I found the following page. I have copied and pasted it in its entirety. As you read it, keep in mind that ‘leader’ can be a single person, a leadership body, a Party or even an ideology. With this in mind, try to think of some examples you have seen in American politics that illustrate each characteristic. As you do so, look for trends in those examples. Above all, be honest as you go through this exercise. Otherwise, it will do you little to no good. If you do this — think of the best possible examples while being sincere in your search for trends — I believe you will arrive at the same answer for my question about the difference between the Left and Right as I did. Oh, and one more thing: it might be helpful to know that the FBI considers cults to be religious in nature and/or its affect on its members:
Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale,” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult; this is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.
The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader, and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (e.g., members must get permission to date, change jobs, or marry—or leaders prescribe what to wear, where to live, whether to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members (e.g., the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized, us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders, or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (e.g., lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and control members. Often this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave—or even consider leaving—the group.
Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may be manipulated, exploited, or even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may help you assess a particular group or relationship.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel.
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members.
The group has a polarized, us-versus-them mentality.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities.
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence members. Often this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave— or even consider leaving—the group.
How are people who left the group treated? What is said about them? Will the group give you names of people who left? Both those who were satisfied and those who were not?
Are former members willing to speak about their experiences? How do they evaluate their time with the group or person?
What is the process for filing complaints? Is there a feedback mechanism that is real and honored? Are complaints made public? Is there a money-back guarantee?
Are your questions answered directly? Are you told time and again to listen to your heart and not your head? Are you told that you are too new, too uninformed, too nosy, and so on, and shouldn’t be asking such questions?
Is there a leader who appears to be the ultimate authority, spokesperson? Are his or her views challenged by others? Must the leader’s opinion be accepted without question?
What is the attitude of the followers toward the leader? Are there checks and balances to hold the leader accountable?
Is more than one point of view presented? Are other points of view recognized? Are other points of view seen as valid but different?
What kind of commitment is expected? In time, money, lifestyle changes?
Does it appear that there are secrets? Is information restricted in any way? Is there some information that you are told must not be shared with outsiders? Is there information that you’re told you can’t get until you’re a member of the group or reached a certain level?
Now, I have no doubt that there will be those who read this and arrive at the opposite conclusion from the one I drew. That’s fine. However, after reading this, I will confess that I will have a difficult time believing that anyone who arrives at the opposite conclusion from mine may well be…. Well, I’ll leave the Reader to finish my sentence for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
NOTE: I want to start by making a statement of fact: the U.S. ‘media’ deliberately and purposefully lies to all of us on a daily basis! Again, this is a fact, not my opinion. And they do it because they are no longer ‘news,’ but the propaganda arm of the American Progressive movement. Now, let me argue my case by using the example of how the media has knowingly and intentionally deceived you in their latest attack on Trump for calling the impeachment farce a ‘lynching.’
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
— George Orwell
Keep those words in mind as I give you a short history lesson. First, let’s start by understanding that the plain meaning of the word, lynching, has nothing to do with race:
The Montgomery adviser, a division of the USA Today home network
“The Negro Holocaust: Lynching and Race Riots in the United States, 1880-1950” states that, contrary to present-day popular conception, lynching was not a crime committed exclusively against black people. Between the 1830s and the 1850s the majority of those lynched in the United States were whites. From 1882-1968, some 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States (not all lynchings were recorded). Of these, 3,446 or 73 percent were black and 1,297 (27 percent) were white. In other words, whites were the victims of more than one-fourth of all lynchings in the United States.
Did you notice that 27% of those lynched during the period between 1880-1950 were white? Now, let me share another little piece of history with you. Did you know that the majority of those whites were Republicans who were lynched by Democrats/KKK members for opposing racism? This is because the Democrat Party and KKK are historically linked to the history of lynchings in America:
Wait! What? The KKK worked with the Democrat Party? YES! This is historical fact, and all the people who are trying to tell you it is not are lying — period! Why are they lying? Remember Orwell’s quote above? They are lying because they cannot afford to let you know the truth:
But the Parties switched sides in the 60’s and early 70’s, right? I mean, it was part of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy,’ wasn’t it? NO! Again, the people telling you this are lying!
OK, now that you know the history of lynchings in America — that they included whites, that they were racist as well as political, and that it was primarily Democrats lynching blacks and Republicans who opposed racism — let’s go back to ‘the media.
The media knows everything I just shared with you. THEY KNOW IT! Yet, they are not telling you about any of it today. Instead, they are intentionally and deliberately deceiving you about the whole history of ‘lynching.’ Why? Well, to understand why the media is lying to you about the history of lynchings in America, we need to review a some more recent history:
In an appearance on CNN in October 1998, however, Biden said the impending impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton could be viewed as a “partisan lynching.”
“Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense,” Biden said.
Now, you need to understand that the Democrats called the impeachment of President Clinton a ‘lynching’ because they were trying to stop the impeachment. But President Clinton was actually guilty. Not only did he commit perjury, but he did it to subvert a legal investigation into his Presidency. That is the very definition of obstruction of justice! Understand what I just said:
President Clinton was impeached for actually doing the exact same thing for which the Democrats are claiming they need to impeach President Trump!!!
Back then, it was permissible for the Democrats to invoke ‘lynchings’ to protect a man who was clearly guilty (and he was guilty on several counts — this is a fact), but, today, President Trump cannot invoke ‘lynching’ to defend himself over unsubstantiated allegations. Why?
Let’s bring this all home:
Remember when I told you to remember that ‘lynchings’ are an act of lawlessness? Well, this is exactly what is happening with the ‘impeachment’ of President Trump. While it is true that the Constitution allows for the impeachment of the President, and that the details of how that is to be done are not specified in the Constitution, it is equally true that there are established precedents for the process. It is also true that, under Pelosi, the Democrats in the House not only refuse to follow that precedent, they are changing the House rules as needed to allow their secret impeachment investigation. They are not even allowing the Republicans in the House the right to participate in these proceedings. Nor are they allowing the President to: face his accusers, to cross-examine those witnesses; to subpoena evidence in his defense, to present his own witnesses and evidence; nor are they following the U.S. Treaty that requires President Trump to do exactly the thing they are claiming is an impeachable offense — to work with Ukraine to prosecute corruption. Furthermore, the Democrats are totally ignoring clear evidence that points to corruption in Ukraine by both the Obama Administration and DNC.
Now, it may be that all of this is technically ‘legal’ (though that is highly doubtful), it is definitely a violation of the rule of law, due process and the very spirit of our Constitution. In short, this ‘impeachment’ is a lawless attack on a duly elected President based entirely in unsubstantiated accusations for purely political purposes.
Dear Reader, that is the definition of a ‘political lynching!’
BTW: this has happened before, and also based on un-substantiated allegations (later proven to be made up):
If you will remember the Kavenaugh hearings, you might be detecting a trend here by now: make up a charge, use it to politically and personally destroy your opponent, then move on with your agenda. Well, this is what they did with Bork, Thomas, Kavenaugh and — now — Trump.
If we stick to logic, the historic and legal evidence we know to be factual and the principles upon which this nation was founded, I contend that I have made my case: the media is deliberately lying to you to protect its political agenda, as well as its political allies in government. I further contend that my argument is based in fact, not opinion. But then, that is all contingent upon one being able to recognize and accept ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ when one encounters it.
I started with an Orwell quote, and now I will end with another:
“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.“
One of the many important aspects of Natural Law that few of us ever stop to actually contemplate is the questions of how — exactly — a thing is defined? What do we mean by the words we assign to describe or talk about a given thing? And what makes that thing the thing we mean to discuss? What is it that makes every member of that definition belong to that definition? This can be confusing, so there is no wonder few people bother to think about it. Still, it is important, so I’ll try to make this a little easier to understand by using a simple example to clarify the point I am trying to make.
If I say, ‘dog,’ you probably get an idea, or picture in your head of a dog. But what makes that thing a dog? What makes the real life creature a dog? What qualities apply to all members of the canine species that make them belong to the term, dog? What we are trying to understand here is: what are the specific set of characteristics, qualities and traits that include all dogs, but only dogs? Why isn’t a cat a dog, but all dogs are dogs? These are not simple questions, but the implications of how we answer them are much more important than we might realize. However, before we look at why these implications are so important, let’s take a quick history lesson on philosophy.
The Western mind has been heavily influenced by the work of the Greek philosophers who tried to tackle these questions. I’ll just touch on the bare basics of the important ideas that were developed by two of the most famous of these philosophers.
Plato is well known for his work in developing the idea of Teleos (from the Greek word, telos, meaning ‘end,’ ‘goal,’ ‘purpose’ or ‘fulfillment’). For Plato, the nature of a thing was defined by its ultimate goal or perfected purpose, toward which that thing naturally strives. So, using our example of dog, the Teleos of a dog is the perfect ideal of what a dog is and does, toward which all dogs strive to achieve. I know that can sound confusing, but stay with me — please.
After Plato, Aristotle added the notion of Essence to the idea of Teleos. According to Aristotle, Essence is the inherent nature of a thing. So, in the case of our dog, its Essence would include things such as having four legs, fur, a keen sense of smell, a wagging tail, a propensity to bark, etc. Together this Essence (the inherent qualities and traits common to all dogs), plus the ultimate or perfect ideal of what a dog is supposed to be and do (the Teleos of a dog) combine to define dog. Hopefully you are starting to get the idea.
Taken together, Essence and Teleos help to define things in a way that explains why certain things belong in certain categories. In short, understanding the concepts of Teleos and Essence is how we not only define a specific group, but it is also how we recognize whether or not a specific thing belongs to that group. In the case of our dog: by learning the Teleos and Essence common to every member of the canine species, we can assign the label of dog to every animal with that Essence and Teleos. Likewise, if we know the Teleos and Essence of a dog, then, when we see new animal for the first time, it will allow us to classify that animal as a dog or not a dog.
Now, before we go any farther with this discussion, let me state this once again: I have greatly simplified this issue (i.e. the Essence of this post) so that I can make my ultimate point (i.e. the Teleos of this post).
That said here is the point: the Essence and Teleos of a thing cannot be separated from that thing! Plato and Aristotle both understood this, but — unfortunately — many of us today do not. Going back to our example of a dog: the purpose of a dog, (its Teleos) and the essence of a dog (its inherent qualities and nature) cannot be separated from the creature without changing that creature into something else. Therefore, a dog is going to be and act like a dog — period!
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF THIS PRINCIPLE
We just went through all that philosophy about Teleos and Essence just so that we can understand what follows: which is how to apply what we just learned in our daily lives.
A friend of mine recently lamented about how naive people can be — especially people who should know better. In this case, my friend was talking about differences of political ideology. Since the TRTC is essentially about the political ideology of individual rights and liberties, this is actually an excellent example and I am going to use it to illustrated how understanding Essence and Teleos can help us avoid mistakes in judgment. The trick here is going to be to try and make this illustration as neutral as possible. I beg the Reader’s indulgence if I fail in this effort.
Suppose you are talking to a person you know fairly well. We’ll call him, Uncle Adolf. Now, Uncle Adolf has political ideas that are 180 degrees opposed to yours. You value individual rights and liberties, but Uncle Adolf is all about control by any means and at any cost. However, Uncle Adolf likes to tell people he cares about them. He wants to help them by giving them things they need without having to pay or work for them. Uncle Adolf also swears that he cares deeply about the rule of law and about the rights and liberties of every individual. However, you know that Uncle Adolf just wants control (i.e. his Teleos is to control everyone), and you know that Uncle Adolf will do anything to gain that control (his Essence is the use of deception and force). Knowing these things about Uncle Adolf, why would you ever believe that Uncle Adolf cares about others, about their rights, their liberties or the rule of law? And yet, all too often, we can find people who claim to support individual rights and liberties and the rule giving Uncle Adolf the benefit of the doubt. Why?
This is what my friend was lamenting: acting contrary to what you know you should be doing. In this case, you know and understand Uncle Adolf’s Teleos and Essence, yet, you will believe him when he swears he has changed, then wonder why you get burned by Uncle Adolf. Worse, you will play Charlie Brown to Lucy’s football. No matter how many times she swears she is going to let you kick the ball then pulls the ball away so she can laugh at you when you fall down, you keep trusting her to let you kick the ball.
There is another little story about this very thing, and I could have told it instead of using our political example. Now, I used the political example first for a reason, but I’ll hold off on tell you the reason for a moment. First, let’s read the story (the short version):
A scorpion wants to get across a pond. He sees a frog and asks the frog if he can ride on the frog’s back as the frog swims across the pond.
The frog says, “No! You’re a scorpion and you will sting me to death when I’m half way across the pond.”
But the scorpion responds by telling the frog, “No, I won’t sting you because, if sting you, we’ll both drown.”
So the frog agrees and lets the scorpion on his back. Then, when they’re half way across the pond, the scorpion stings the frog. Just before the frog dies, he asks the scorpion, “Why did you do that? Now we’ll both drown.”
To which the scorpion replies, “What did you expect? I’m a scorpion: it’s what I do.”
OK, hopefully, the point of the story is clear. Well, here’s the point of the political example: the person whose political ideology is focused on control, and whose nature is to do whatever they need to do to seize that control is a scorpion. If you ever agree to trust them, at some point, they will string you to death — even if it means they perish along with you! Such people can’t help themselves: it’s just their Teleos and Essence (i.e. their purpose and nature). Stinging people is what they do. So, why would you ever trust such a person?
FOR A BETTER OVER-VIEW OF THE ISSUE(S) DISCUSSED IN THIS POST:
After the Natural Law
By John Lawrence Hill
(The material discussed in this post can be found in Chapter 2, pages 34-54)
Before we begin, let me ask you not to dismiss this post as ‘conspiracy.’ Instead of falling for this, keep in mind that the CIA intentionally introduced this idea into the U.S. consciousness specifically so they could discredit anyone who ever leaks or gets close to exposing the Deep State in this country. Do not let this disinformation programming stop you from giving real consideration to the argument that follows.
Now that I have asked you to hear me out, let me explain that everything that follows is ‘circumstantial.’ But circumstantial does not mean it is invalid. In fact, it is the most common form of logical argument, only, in formal logic, we call it ‘inductive reasoning.’ It may go by a different name, but it is the same thing, and it is a legitimate form of rational reasoning.
OK, here is the question:
DOES THE DEEP STATE REALLY EXIST?
Well, let’s consider the fact that Woodrow Wilson detailed his plan to create a Deep State under the guise of ‘scientific administration,’ in which a specially educated elite would be appointed to run a bureaucratic system that ‘administrates’ the government without having to answer to the voters or even the President. Today, we have this extra-Constitutional bureaucracy, and it is largely headed up and run by graduates of ‘elite,’ Ivy League schools — which is exactly what Wilson wanted to do. By Wilson’s own definition, this is The Deep State.
But let’s not stop here. Let’s look to see if we can find any evidence which suggests there is an illegitimate government operating from within the legitimate government. We’ll start by simply taking them at their word:
Dear Reader, the U.S> Intelligence Community has no authorization to make or meddle in policy matters. In fact, it is illegal for them to do so. Their job is to provide the President/Command Authority with the best possible intelligence, then leave the President/Command Authority to use it to make the nation’s policy. That means that stories such as these represent indirect evidence that the U.S. Intelligence Community is operating outside of its authority (and the law):
Furthermore, when Intelligence operatives reveal classified information to the public, or even if they leak it to other divisions of the government without going through the legally defined process, they are breaking U.S. law. This includes the supposed ‘whistle-blowers’ who went to Schiff instead of the IG. Once again, stories such as these represent indirect evidence that the U.S. Intelligence Community is actively working against the duly elected authority of the President:
In addition to these stories, we have former Intelligence officials trying to tell us that the Intelligence Community is engaged in operations against the President:
Dear Reader, are you still with me? Do you see that, at the very least, there is reason to suspect that there is a problem inside the U.S. Intelligence Community and DOJ? If not, would it help to know that there are good and decent people inside the government who are trying to root out this corruption through the established legal process?
Let’s go back to the DOJ. We have seen evidence that suggests we do have a problem with the U.S. Intelligence Community, but what about the DOJ? Do we have anything that suggests the DOJ is part of this corruption within our government? Well, yes:
These stories represent formal complaints by duly authorized government authority:
Please understand: I chose these three stories specifically because they are related to the impeachment coup. There are many other such stories that could be listed. However, these should be enough to show that the DOJ is connected to an organized attack on the duly elected authority of the Executive branch of our government.
But what about the State Department? Can we connect the State Department to any of this?
Well, why ignore Hillary’s $84 million violation while going after these two men? You know what? I don’t care. If they are guilty, charge, try and convict them! But let’s look at the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. This is the authority that arrested these two men. But they are also the same authority that refused to accept evidence of Biden/DNC/Obama/Clinton/Soros corruption in Ukraine proving that these people and organizations colluded to throw the U.S. 2016 election for Hillary, as well as financial corruption by these same people and organizations within Ukraine.
Yes, the same U.S. Attorney that arrested Giuliani’s associates for campaign finance violations also refused the information proving — yes, proving — that Biden/DNC/Obama/Clinton/Soros are, in fact, guilty of the same in Ukraine.
But here is where the State Department is connected. Have you seen this story?
Well, this is the very same ambassador who was put in place by then President Obama and who, after taking her position in Ukraine, repeatedly refused to allow Ukraine officials permission to enter the U.S. so they could provide the same information against Biden/DNC/Obama/Clinton/Soros that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York refused to accept. And the only reason those Ukraine oficials were even able to come to the U.S. was because Presdient Trump fired and replaced Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch with an ambassador who finally gave those Ukraine officials permission to come to the U.S.
Do you see the pattern here? Ukraine officials have evidence against the Obama Administration. They request permission to come to the U.S. so they can present that information. Obama appoints an ambassador who refuses that permission until President Trump fires and replaces her with someone who grants them that permission. Then those Ukraine officials come to the U.S. and present that information to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who promptly refuses to even accept it.
By the way: it is no coincidence that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York is in the same jurisdiction of the New York State Court that has offered to give the Democrats in Congress Trump’s the tax returns after they could not legally acquire them, themselves:
Now, this connects back to Obama once again. But none of this matters, right? I mean, we have this story to ‘prove’ there is nothing to the email scandal:
Yeah… Ah, not so much. As we just saw, the FBI is most likely part of a massive subversive element within the government, which means the FBI forgiving Hillary is the same as a co-conspirator forgiving their fellow conspirator. Or, put another way, this last story is nothing more than the guilty telling the nation that the other guilty person is not guilty. It simply does not work that way — not unless you are corrupt.
Now, Reader, you might not be convinced. You might find a way to dismiss all of this. But that does not mean this is a ‘conspiracy theory’ — because it isn’t. This is more than enough to obtain search warrants and subpoenas that would allow honest people to investigate further. In some cases, it is enough to remove government officials, such as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the majority of the DOJ, FBI and CIA. Please remember, when it comes to government servants, we do not need to prove a crime to remove them. The appearance of wrong-doing is sufficient to betray the public trust, and that is all that is required to remove people who serve at the pleasure of the People.
Besides, this is a table-top sketch of the case for a Deep State. People have written entire books about this and, when it is all taken in total, it is one of the strongest inductive arguments for a subversive element within our government that has ever been or could ever be made. This case may not convince some people, and that’s fine. Not everyone embraces reason: they are happy to live in their own, personal delusions. It’s safer that way.
