Analysis, synthesis and commentary on 25 items from the news cycle 26 Jan 19 - 31 Jan 19.

1. 1984 IN 2019

George Orwell could relate to this Deep State and its FBI attack dogs.

The political precedence currently being established is pushing America further down the road of being a full-on totalitarian banana republic. The first clue? It's the political weaponizing of federal institutions and systems against political opponents and the populace as a whole: FBI, CIA, IRS, etc.

This development is concerning.


"There is at present an undeclared and non-violent civil war being waged in this country.  The underlying factor of any civil war is an elite ruling class desperate to maintain power at odds with a majority of a population seeking change."

The quote above is precise justification for the existence of this Gab account (and website) and all of the work that goes into it.


Yesterday, it was asserted that Brennan's latest Twitter tirade was a warning shot to the president and pretext for what is to come. In it, Mr. Brennan stated, "All Americans, especially members of Congress, need to understand the danger you pose to our national security."

That reads very much like a bipartisan congressional effort to invoke the 25th Amendment due to national security threats posed by the president, and then remove him from office citing fitness for duty.

Coincidentally and to no one's surprise, neither Mr. Brennan nor the Democrats bothered to care when Mr. Obama came down heavily on the intelligence community. Mr. Schumer cared not to blast the president on that occasion.

Recall early on when there was an initial push to invoke the 25th and remove the president due to mental instability? I do and it's important. That narrative played-out in the mainstream looking more like a litmus test to gauge public sentiment and response than a full-fledged effort akin to something like the Kavanaugh opposition. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:  This is a fluff piece looking for wheels; an item to gin-up interest and sew opinion in the base.

The crux of it for the Democrats was that they obviously believed their rationale behind invoking the 25th fell short of what's required to convincingly portray a newly elected president, who had little governance under his belt, as mentally deficient to the extent that his removal from office was justified. That was an insurmountable task no matter the degree of dishonesty and regardless of a fully complicit and willing mainstream media. So, they just held on to that card for another time.

The 25th is a tool for removal that the Democrats and Deep State have simply kept handy in their back pocket. The only sticking point for them was finding an effective enough narrative to justify its use. They've been shopping around for a better reason and as suggested last night, Mr. Brennan is telling us they've found it. In short, they're transitioning the president from 'crazy' to 'a threat' and using national security to do it.

This is appears to be playing out as suggested. What we're seeing is likely two consecutive days of pretext establishing the next move against the president and relative to the impeachment timeline. Simply, they're going to try to invoke the 25th as a last ditch effort to avoid the heavy political penalty that an impeachment of the president would carry.

To a degree, Chuck Schumer has now confirmed last night's assertion; however, the news cycle will ultimately provide any such confirmation. To close, this effort may see the same fate as the first, but it appears we at least know the context.


Mr. Brennan, Obama's duplicitous and loathed former CIA chief, is now proclaiming that President Trump is a threat to national security. Beneath the veneer of his words, there is a Constitutional angle and threat.

Is the following statement a veiled threat at invoking the 25th Amendment against the president? I say it is. Consider:

"All Americans, especially members of Congress, need to understand the danger you pose to our national security." - John Brennan

A literal translation tells us that in veiled fashion, Mr. Brennan is threatening a bi-partisan, Congressional effort to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove him from office under the auspices of his alleged threat to national security. Ergo, that threat renders him, " unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office..."

Consider as sourced below:

"Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President."

So, why play this card and why now? It reads like an attempt to preempt the already scheduled and imminent impeachment of Trump. An impeachment, which is likely to fail to see Senate failure anyways, will carry a significant political penalty for the Democrats (outside of their base - think swing vote.) If they can invoke the 25th and accomplish the same objective while also perhaps increasing the odds that it's successful, now would be the precise time to do so. Mueller's report is forthcoming and the impeachment is certain to follow therefore this is a small and closing window of time.

What are the implications, then? As discussed previously related to the Stone arrest, removing the president triggers the process of presidential succession and that has immediate consequences: Pence is now president with the freedom to select his own vice president -OR- Pelosi is president because they were successful in removing both Trump and Pence.

If it's the latter, Pelosi may also select her VP, which could be Hillary Clinton and whereby Pelosi could immediately resign. There you have it - Hillary Clinton, et al., just exacted a modern day coup d'etat of a sitting US president.

Is this a warning shot from Brennan that will shift the narrative? It sure looks like it.


The source linked below is from the venerable Martin Armstrong and actually examines whether or not money printing can have deflationary effects; not just customary inflationary ones. One line from the article immediately caught my attention and tangentially landed on the topic of quantitative easing and the impact it has on budgets and spending; especially defense spending -

"The crisis is when you borrow to fund that deficit spending. In 2019, interest expenditures may now exceed the cost of defense. It is far cheaper to create the money needed than borrow and keep rolling the deficits forever. Then the cumulative interest keeps rising and crowds out all other expenditures."

 It reads like this:

1. In 2007, cause an economic crash with a primed housing bubble just waiting to be popped.

2. Create that crash on the back end of a controversial presidency with a general election only a few months away.

3. Create momentum for the political opposition with a freshly minted and virtually unknown candidate - Barack Hussein Obama.

4. Use the economic aftermath of the crash to justify a policy of economic redress and usher-in quantitative easing.

5. Attempt to print our way out of trouble, double the national debt, create inflationary trends and progressively squeeze other budgetary items with an ever growing national debt and interest bill.

6. The reductions in spending are then calibrated with the budget to facilitate cuts.

7. The deficit spending and accumulating interest progressively worsen destructing the military over time and in somewhat of covert manner.

8. Leave behind a nearly insurmountable amount of debt so as to guarantee that this problem will be around for the long-term; no matter who is president.

So what did Obama leave us? He left interest payments that top defense spending. Translated, that reads like a) The FED, a private bank owned by bankers controls your money supply and dictates monetary policy while b) your interest bill now dictates how you spend money; not the people constitutionally responsible for it, ergo whomever your debt holders are, that's who controls your spending (China holds $1.18 trillion while Japan holds $1.03 trillion of national debt.) That does not speak well to sovereignty.

If I were a rogue president - and there's a bounty of evidence the MSM refuses to examine demonstrating that Obama/'Renegade' was exactly that, and I wanted to deliberately destroy the US military without drawing the attention of the American people, how would I do it? Simple - budgets and funding. The rest of the plan you already know.

6. US/RUSSIAN SABRE RATTLING IN REAL TIME - Venezuela is the new Syria

Keeping a close eye on the Venezuela story is a sage move; especially now that the Russians have rhetorically upped the ante with the, "whatever it takes" line.

Venezuela presents the perfect context whereby NGOs and the Deep State, it's sprawling apparatus and likely other entities, could effectively sew seeds of conflict between the US and Russia as each nation looks to defend its competing interests.

In 2016, the very first card played by the Deep State was exactly 'RUSSIA.' Therefore, how and why can we be expected to believe that the developing situation in Venezuela, which directly involves Russia in an adversarial position and with potentially devastating consequences, is not a card being played from precisely the same hand? Occam's Razor applies - there are only two options - it is or it isn't. I'm saying it is.

Although John Bolton's presence and influence can account for it, it's a bit surprising that President Trump decided to forego the principle of national sovereignty and move in the direction of further expanding US hegemony. It resulted in a number of US actions including freezing US held Venezuelan accounts, proclaiming Maduro's opponent Venezuela's legitimate president, sanctioning the Venezuelan state oil company; all otherwise known as abandoning sovereignty and taking a side in an internal foreign dispute.

Is President Trump being manipulated into this position by the Deep State and/or military industrial complex and likely in the name of spreading democracy while ending a brutal tyranny? Is President Trump speaking out of both sides of his mouth? Is he playing an unknown angle? Is he just doing what he believes is right given the evidence of the impact of Maduro's oppressive rule over the Venezuelan people?

Cogent arguments could be made in response to all of those questions and in a number of different directions. Realistically, though, his decision is likely rooted in doing what's right while preserving US interests; with a lot of rhetoric to rationalize it all (sell it to the people.)

No matter, though, the real issue is that Venezuela is now an arena in which the US and Russia are directly opposed. Moreover, it aligns and flows nicely with a well-established anti-Russian pretext that closely resembles a contemporary effort in McCarthyism.

Now ask yourself this - With the US withdrawing from Syria, does the Deep State lose a very critical component to their Trump strategy and namely the ability to directly pit the US and Russia against one another? Yes, they do. Is it valuable enough to justify recovering at any expense? Yes, it is.
That's exactly what we have in Venezuela and that's why it merits our attention. The Deep State doesn't lose, they adapt like a mutating virus and are doing so by transitioning this lever over from a lost Syria to an emerging Venezuela. 

I'm writing this as I research my way through the article linked at the bottom:

1. One of the accused FBI officials is retired; meaning recently retired, and that makes for a relatively short list of names and it comports with the news cycle

2. Researching FAR via the GSA page, nets this: "The Department of Defense (DoD), GSA, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) jointly issue the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for use by executive agencies in acquiring goods and services." -

3. The quoted text in point two included a link to the FAR page, which loads  as down for scheduled maintenance:

4. Look at one of the areas of purview for the GSA - "GSA's acquisition solutions offer private sector professional services, equipment, supplies, and IT to government organizations and the military."

5. Now look at a very specific dialogue last night regarding IT and the private sector (Clinton's private email server used for State Dept. business) -

6. Through another lens, this announcement could also speak towards FISA/FISC and access to the data bases that were illegally searched for Fusion GPS:

7. "Further, the OIG found that the FBI contractor failed to adhere to personal conflict of interest rules under the FAR.” Is that contractor Fusion GPS and/or Christopher Steele?

8. The OIG's investigation was established on referral from the FBI and that comports with a multitude of relevant ongoing investigations in the news cycle.

The release from the OIG is intentionally vague; however, it deduces to one of two possible directions; conceding there are certainly more than two plausible possibilities:

1. It's most likely that this is a FISC/FISA/Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele development

2. It also stands to reason that this is a Clinton/private email server development

My chips are on FISC/FISA/Fusion GPS/Steele.

UPDATE: Nellie Ohr is the logical nexus here - she's the one we've long known as a dual Fusion GPS/CIA asset given her overlapping employment. This item today from CTH further supports tying this back to FISC/FISA/Fusion GPS:

Related to the broader immigration and southern border wall standoff between the president and congressional Democrats, during House testimony on Tuesday the landscape appeared to shift in favor of the president.

Vowing to fulfill his campaign promise to secure the southern border, President Trump has stated multiple times that he will build the southern physical barrier with or without Congress.
Subsequently, the option of the president exercising unilateral action to build the barrier took to the spotlight. The crux of the matter; however, was a caveat requiring the president to formally declare a national emergency to trigger the necessary powers to act unilaterally.

That all changed significantly on Tuesday when the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, John Rood, testified that not only could the president act unilaterally without declaring a national emergency, but that the military would follow-through and execute said lawful orders.

As it now stands, the back-up plan has a back-up plan and the Democrats still have no fallback position. Meanwhile, they continue squander a second round of negotiating while painting themselves as unhinged and unreasonable; and for all of America to bear witness.


1. This is the second go-round in the news cycle for this topic, albeit in very limited scope and only in right to hard right sources among others:

2. A Google search rendered skewed results in Clinton's favor, which suggests legitimacy to the claims given what we know about Google:

3. The very first item in Google's results was a Snopes defense proclaiming the issue 'false' suggesting legitimacy to the claims due to Snopes' established liberal bias and what we know about them: 

4. Duck Duck Go's search for the topic rendered what appeared to be more objective results, which suggests legitimacy to the claims:

Standing alone, each of the four circumstances have little gravity but when combined, they pull in the direction of this topic remaining on the radar screen and worthy of researching and tracking. It stands to reason that this topic may have wheels.


The US Secretary of State is the chief official sitting atop the entirety of the State Department and must be confirmed by the Senate after being nominated by the president. When considering the global geopolitical landscape, aside from the president himself, the Secretary of State is arguably the next most critical official in the US government.

The following represent the primary directives for the US Department of State and therefore, former Secretary Clinton would have been intimately involved and ultimately responsible for everything on this list (source linked below):

Arms Control and International Security
Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights
Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment
Political Affairs
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

Now consider this excerpt from the linked (bottom) and exclusive Epoch Times article below. If you've been reading CTH, you'll know that "exclusive" refers to yet another round of leaked information.

"The office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General informed the FBI in 2015 that a forensic review of Hillary Clinton’s emails unearthed anomalies in the metadata of the messages. The evidence in the metadata suggested that a copy of every email Hillary Clinton sent during her tenure as the secretary of state was forwarded to a foreign third party."

My mind immediately went to China - remember when Trump tweeted about the significance of China in the midst of everything 'Russia?' A quick scan to the bottom confirmed the hunch.

While serving as Obama's Secretary of State, Clinton apparently took deliberate steps with a private email server to ensure that a foreign country (China) automatically received copies of every email.
Now, re-read the list provided above and ask yourself if selling that information to the Chinese amounts to treason?

Now consider that former disgraced FBI director James Comey oversaw the bureau when they disregarded empirical evidence demonstrating the treasonous email crimes committed by Clinton.
That's not a surprise, though, as Comey has a long and spotty history of being a Clinton fixer.
The ET item linked below is well worth your time and all of the usual suspects are discussed.

The failed Stacey Abrams was chosen specifically for her two distinct layers of armor that she dons at all times. In the eyes of the Democrats and along with their identity politics, virtue signaling and mandated politically correct speech, these two layers of armor allow her to speak with impunity and therefore, we can expect a rhetorically loaded SOTU response that will eviscerate the president. In other words, it will be more of what we've seen from folks of this ilk since Trump emerged as the likely nominee.

The two layers are as obvious as can be and specifically, it's that Abrams is a woman and a minority. Period. And it's pure political maneuvering and statecraft and nothing else.

Any logical retort from a reasonable alternative perspective or worse is guaranteed to be met with an attack alleging racism and misogyny. Guaranteed. It's an instantaneous deflection and pivot away from any cogent argument that might be presented by the opposition. It simultaneously affords the speaker an attack position with impunity.

That's precisely how it's designed to work and exactly why someone with two layers of armor was chosen.


I'm of the opinion and have stated repeatedly that the Democrats are in the process of conducting one litmus test after another with potentials to serve in their ranks. Aside from the cover Abrams provides to the Democrats in her forthcoming presidential evisceration, they are trotting her out to gauge what type of response she'll garner from the base.

Here's similar thought along those lines and CTH projects that she'll bid for a Senate seat in 2020.


The Democrats could care less about people and they regard certain people and groups as game pawns to be discarded like refuse as soon as they are no longer useful. For contemporary examples consider the Kavanaugh accusers, Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenati, etc. The Democrats will gladly eat their own assuming it serves a greater purpose toward the end of a broader personal or political objective.

The Democrats will champion the causes of immigrant women and children while caravans and unrelenting illegal immigration continue to pressure the southern border. They do so not because they care about these people - they see them as Third World chattel while we're nothing more than First World chattel. We're all chattel nonetheless and rest assured that as soon as the immigration matter is put to rest, these women and children will be cast aside, too. Why? They only want a permanent Democratic voter base in this country, which is the broader political objective. People are nothing more than tools to make that happen.

They also have no interest their constituents, authentic representation or giving fidelity to the process of legislating. Essentially, they care little about why they were actually 'elected.' Rather, these Democrats, who are nothing more than the liberal side of the 'Uniparty,' are only consumed by three primary motivators.

The Democrats' base only hear the platitudinous rhetoric they spew ad nauseam; however, to truly understand their real ambitions, disregard words and consider actions; especially repeated patterns of actions. What's left is an insatiable thirst for absolute power, absolute wealth and absolute self-aggrandizement.

Just ask Starbucks CEO Howard Schutlz about this party, which is his party. When he was supporting their candidates and using his coffee shops to champion liberal causes, he was useful, admired and essential to the cause. Now that he has decided to throw his hat in the ring, he's dispensable and fodder for attack. Why? It's not about him - a person - or the voters - people - who may exercise their rights to vote for him. It has nothing to do with people or representation.

Rather, it's about doing whatever is necessary to obstruct and remove President Trump. Consider that Rep. Brad Sherman reintroduced impeachment articles on their very first day back in control of the House whereby Pelosi placed impeachment on the House calendar. All of this without a single grain of evidence of any crime related to the president and Russia?

How quickly the Democratic tide turns. So, to discern what today's Democrat covets, know that three things and only three things matter - absolute power, absolute wealth and absolute self-aggrandizement - that's all you need to know to truly understand them. That and absolutely nothing will stand in their way.

Just ask Howard.

(For further data, here's an examination of the legislative momentum on day one of the newly seated Democratically controlled house) -


Obviously, the president clearly understands the significance of Howard Schultz's intention to run as a Democrat on an Independent ticket. It presents an opportunity to potentially split the Democratic base in three directions (Clinton, Sanders and Schultz.)

Potentially, Sanders and Clinton would bloody each other during the primaries. Schultz would then finish the job by diluting the Democratic vote during the 2020 general election as he steals voters from whomever ends-up on the Democratic ticket.

Meanwhile, Trump is trolling him (them) to this very end. The man rarely if ever misses an opportunity and it's as entertaining as it is effective.

Accepting this development - Weissman's likely authorship of the forthcoming Mueller report that will destroy Trump - at face value and assuming it proves true, does it speak to the president's timeline?

To-date, President Trump has yet to make any sort of major political maneuver to shift the overwhelmingly negative narrative in the direction of his favor. It's presumed he has legitimate ammunition and that would make his inaction deliberate. That resembles one drawing-out the opposition.

Knowing what we do, it's beginning to look like Trump may be working to draw-out the Democrats to the end of the line; to a point where they have expended all of their ammunition. That timeline would deduce to post-Mueller report and post-impeachment proceedings.

There's a sense that he's using their current greatest strength - newly found confidence rooted in post-midterm political momentum - against them by allowing them to fully expose themselves up through impeachment.

That projects to be the moment President Trump yanks the thread on the sweater, declassifies it all and brings down the House.


Federal authorities have refused to unseal documents likely containing incriminating and/or misconduct evidence related to Robert Mueller and the Uranium One scandal. The documents were captured in the FBI's raid of whitsleblower Dennis Nathan Cain's home.

The judge then sealed her own justification for keeping the documents sealed appearing to be intentionally shield the information from the public. That is a telling sign.

Bearing in mind that law enforcement traditionally and as a matter of practice refrains from any comment pertaining to ongoing investigations, this likely ends in one of two ways:

1. This is a complete cover-up and the information is being absorbed and buried by Mueller, which previous posts have spoken to directly


2. The documents are part of an ongiong investigation and comment would be in appropriate

We'll likely have a clearer picture soon.

In several posts, mention has been made of two concepts - a) the 2016 Clinton loss rendering a smarter, savvier, more capable Deep State and b) the Democrats rebranding themselves into something fresh and new. Here's a previous post on it ( ).

The crux of this is that the latter is a product of the former: A caused B. What we're seeing in Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, etc. is the end product of this of this cause/effect relationship and it projects to the Democratic party shifting hard in this direction; especially when Bernie's 2016 success is factored-in. On this trajectory, America will be at its most polarized point being caught between Marxist Socialism and Constitutional Republicanism.

It stands to reason that a new and improved Deep State would have learned from both its own mistakes and Trump's successes. Here's a NY Post item supporting the notion: 


Request: If readers are current on Q's drops and analyze their timing relevant to current events, I'm asking for help/input in analyzing the information below.

Immediate concession: Right, wrong or indifferent, I likely depart from many of those following Q in that I pay far less attention to proofs, timestamps, deltas and the inferences they create than I do events, the body politic, the news cycle, etc.; and the timing of those events to Q's drops. In short, it's all about analysis and synthesis - no more, no less - and the results vary.

Question: Is the consensus that in particular ways, the overall Q-drop timeline operates on a 1-year delta? I've seen that argument intelligently presented a number of times, aspects of it are compelling and it could be relevant here.

In relation to this RED CASTLE/GREEN CASTLE post from earlier today ( ), the 1-year delta may be a component. Consider:

11/23/2017 - #219: The_Castle_Runs_RED_yes > this is the first appearance of "castle" and "red"

02/14/2018 - #756: RED_CASTLE_OK > this is the first appearance of "RED_CASTLE" in conjunction with "OK," which an inference to authorization

02/16/2019 - this is the president's self-imposed deadline to enact unilateral action in the absence of a legislative solution to the southern border barrier

This provides a 367-day delta between the first appearance of authorizing unilateral action in Q drops and the president's deadline for enacting the same.

Depending on how this matter eventually plays-out, it could significantly underpin QAnon as being authentic. Time will tell.


In tracking the immigration/southern border barrier stalemate, the matter is transitioning into a reopened government for a second round of negotiating.

All indicators are such that the president will act unilaterally in the absence of a legislative solution. Although the Congress seems poised to compromise on the issue, it's hard to imagine the Democratically controlled House allowing something that will a) rise to the level of acceptance to the president and thereby give him a victory and b) inflame their own base.

Last commented on 8 days ago here ( ), it's significant that the unilateral option even made its way to the mainstream narrative. It will be monumental to the veracity of Q should the president exercise the unilateral option, which is expected to happen given the Democrats' inflexibility and unwillingness to reasonably negotiate.

Given the president's self-imposed deadline on a three-week window, we should know by mid-February or sooner. In fact, here ( ) is an angle on how the president could upstage Speaker Pelosi's perceived immigration victory by announcing the unilateral action on the House floor.


Assuming Hillary Clinton isn't prosecuted and jailed for obvious felonious crimes and treasonous acts and assuming her health doesn't deteriorate to a point that prevents her from dragging herself from her witch's lair to the Oval Office, she will run.

She will also steal the nomination again. She will commit more crimes. She will conspire with more foreign entities. She will tell more lies. She will conduct more cover-ups. She will cause more Americans to lose their lives. She will delete more evidence. She will commit more voter fraud. She will broker more criminal deals. She will strip us of more rights and liberties. She will continue to do whatever she must in order to achieve her personal objectives and despite all of us. She will continue to be who Hillary is:

1. Starving for absolute power

2. Craving a place in history

3. Deregulating her EGO to facilitate it all (not that it was ever regulated in the first place)

If President Trump is holding the cards in his hand, which we presume to be the case, he will have to play them and play the effectively to prevent a Clinton presidency. Examine the Deep State's reaction to the 2016 loss - they've learned their lessons, they are modifying their tactics, they created and controlled the entirety of the MSM narrative, they have obstructed the president and his agenda, they have the House, they will impeach the president and they are hellbent on winning it back in 2020. If she runs - and she will - only a wholesale shift in tactics from the president can prevent a Clinton presidency in 2020.

She will run and she will win (steal it) UNLESS the president moves to unravel it all.


In this post ( ), it was suggested that low-information Americans subject to the influence of state-sponsored propaganda and who thrive solely on information proffered by the legacy media, are exchanging intelligence for diversity.
In other words, ignorant voters who treat politics like religion and dogma are selecting their 'representatives' based upon their appearance and the notion of inclusion. Translated, "choose her, she looks neat and different."

Why? As it comports with Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which is the driving force behind the Left's approach, the practice of identity politics has taken a strong hold and it manifests daily as controlling entities censor our speech at the same time intolerant Leftists virtue signal to the same end. Conveniently, at the university level the foundation of identity politics is laid under the guise of teaching 'multiculturalism,' but buyer beware, multiculturalism is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Sandy 'from an elite enclave near the Bronx' Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Neguse, etc. aren't qualified to be dog catcher much less representatives in the most powerful government on earth (but they sure do look neat!) This also makes them dangerous because in statecraft, unqualified, low-information people  holding positions of power SERVE OTHER CLANDESTINE SOURCES OF POWER and are beholden to that agenda. They also have built-in insurance against appropriate criticism. As soon as their positions are challenged, the Left will most certainly deploy all of the "-ists" to defend: racist, misogynist, etc.

As discussed here ( ), the Deep State is rebranding the Democratic party and inclusiveness and multiculturalism serve as the pretense by which the rebranding is being done. Along the lines of inclusiveness and multiculturalism, the immigration issue takes root and in this post ( ), the nexus between unmitigated Third World immigration to the US and a permanent, one-party Democratic voter base is discussed. When examining the total body of evidence, the Left is attempting to usher-in a new contemporary type of politician that will inevitably have designs on transforming America into a Marxist Socialist nation. The recipe: blend the population, destroy what remains of traditional America and relegate it to governance by a single party with no alternative.

Until America can divorce itself from the disassociated reality that has been embedded by its wholly corrupted government, we will continue to embark upon the slippery slope of exchanging intelligence for diversity. It's the only way the Left can see through to achieving its objectives.


There are two primary OBJECTIVES the duplicitous Left is working to achieve in its absolutist position regarding open borders, no physical barrier and unmitigated illegal immigration into the US:

1. Ultimately and in accordance with the objectives of the UN, one is to blend the global populace under a one-world government; with that government being the UN. Admittedly, it's a conspiratorial angle that deserves its own dialogue to give it due diligence.

2. In support of the first objective, eliminate the perception of the 2-party choice in America. This is accomplished by importing millions upon millions of illegal aliens and unconstitutionally allowing them to participate in elections thus rendering America to a permanent, one-party Democratic voter base.

President Trump's election as an outlier has with great magnitude interrupted these nefarious plans and that is precisely why the Deep State has reared its head in such aggressive fashion of the immigration issue. It's why we're seeing such vitriolic theatrics over the issue in DC.

Both sides are all-in on immigration: Trump trying to restore and preserve traditional American v. the Deep State/Uniparty/Left trying to push us further down the road of a Marxist Socialist blended populace under the control of one authoritarian, totalitarian government.

Examine the first linked item presented by the Epoch Times today in light of other items, and the mosaic of information begins to make sense. Although Texas and California are discussed, clearly this logic can expanded to other states for a more complete picture.

Rest assured that what we are seeing today has little to do with the veneer of arguments making the rounds in the MSM - women, children, 'rights', etc. - rather it's all designed to eliminate you as a voice; to eliminate you as a voter; to eliminate you as a citizen in a democratically principled Constitutional Republic where you reserve the right to determine your governance.

Remember, at a 1:1 rate, every illegal vote counted cancels the vote of a real American citizen.


One of the more peculiar and suspicious aspects of the Left's gun control position, which has working been in overdrive since 2008 with its unrelenting attack on the Second Amendment, is the disparity in how the Left reacts to gun deaths versus other similar, if not identical, scenarios.

A firearm, like an automobile, a knife, a screwdriver, or any other tool, is an implement that people freely select to assist them in some endeavor. Moreover, the firearm serves a second and much grander purpose, which the Left works to undermine with platitudinous rhetoric supported by contrived 'statistics' and baseless claims. Namely, it's that it serves as the last barrier between all of us and a tyrannical, authoritarian, totalitarian government. That is also precisely why the Left maintains its unyielding affront - it's not about saving lives or any other gobbledygook proffering - all of that rhetoric is to one end and that is disarming Americans and removing the final barrier.

The Left operates on Alinsky's rules and never lets a good crisis go to waste; especially if a firearm is involved. We all know the form their reaction takes - just examine the fabricated dog and pony show rolled-out at Parkland; replete with the overnight creation of the petulant Deep State idol David Hogg, et al. Talk about theatrics. Talk about deceitful, disingenuous and propagandized.
To my point and how rich the irony given the Parkland example above.

Florida has just been identified as the 'most dangerous' state for pedestrian deaths as caused by automobiles and with a rate of incidence of 2.7 per 100,000 (sourced below.)
Examining gun homicides for 2006-2017, you can see that the rate of incidence fluctuates from a high of 3.42 in 2006 to a low of 2.61 in 2014 (sourced below.)

Where is the outrage? Where is the clamoring for the banning of automobiles? Where is the legislation mandating that drivers undergo thorough background checks? Where is the legislation banning private citizen-to-citizen auto sales? Where is the legislation mandating what type of auto you can by, how heavy or big it is, how fast it goes, etc. We could do this for a week.

It gets worse. Where is the outrage against doctors, hospitals and medical providers all together? Where is the outrage against the political mega-donor regarded as the medical industrial complex? Why are those questions relevant? As discussed here (, 250,000 Americans die at the hands of medical malpractice each year, yet somehow, it's inanimate guns and the respective annual average of 10,000 homicides that are the problem.

No, rather, PEOPLE are the problem. People freely make choices and choices have consequences. It doesn't matter if someone is sitting behind the wheel, standing behind the scalpel or shouldering the firearm - A PERSON MAKES A CHOICE in how the inanimate tool is utilized and therefore the person, not the inanimate object, becomes the focus of scrutiny.

The Left is a duplicitous group hellbent on galvanizing its power, authority and wealth and nothing will interfere with those objectives, especially our Second Amendment rights, which are designed to prevent exactly that.

24. IF YOU FOLLOW Q, THIS IS A MUST READ FROM CTH - An angle opposing the Epoch Times' 'trust the plan' position

For anyone following Q as a believer, a denier or just an interested party, this is a must read item. Previous posts have included analysis and positions identical to those of CTH/Sundance and they are revisited in this item, but in an emerging news context.

The discussion is framed by developments involving the notorious Adam Schiff and his provision of unreleased transcripts to Mueller for the express purposed of them being exploited, absorbed and shielded. It also provides a likely nexus between the House, Pelosi, Schiff, Mueller and Rosenstein; all in a position antithetical to the president's administration and agenda. It also calls into question Matt Whitaker's role and the veracity of Q.

Most importantly, Sundance accurately recapitulates very real political constructs that many following the Q phenomenon are ignoring, dismissing or unrealistically expecting will be overcome in some outlandish political maneuver.

No matter one's position regarding Q, maintaining a line of sight through a critical lens is essential for a realistic view.

Following my submission this morning here ( ), I ran across this like-minded CTH item. In it, Sundance expresses a similar view through a similar lens but with some different details. Per the norm, Sundance's submission is worthy of your time.


Popular posts from this blog