Topics (2): 17 items from recommended readings to editorial pieces and analytical items.


Re: Q drop excerpt below:

When you strip away the veneer of this and distill it down to what it actually is, the sheer predation is profoundly troubling. It's a failed political party that has instituted decades of policy and legislation (urban Democrats/major cities) directly contributing to single mothers; who then often chose abortion as the solution. This is what's called a supply line and that line terminates at abortion clinics (Planned Parenthood.)

This party has failed to thrive such that it cannot raise sufficient funds and must therefore pursue other avenues to generate funding. Enter Planned Parenthood - now, stoke-up the base on women's rights, "healthcare," the right to "choose," etc., and both supply and demand are created. That momentum is then used to steal our tax dollars vis-a-vis federal funding; and for a prominent Democratic issue. It's a nifty little theft and laundering operation. Of course, that's only after Planned Parenthood turns significant portions of those funds over to the Democrats in the way of donations.

TRANSLATED: the Democrats are disproportionately killing black babies and others to fund their failed political party. (Sourced below Q drop) As stated, the level of predation is profoundly troubling.

Q drop excerpt:

[Example 1]
Planned Parenthood
$1.5 billion provided in taxpayer funding over 3-year period.
[Case 1]
PP spent $30 million [disclosed - real estimates close to $65 million] in taxpayer subsidies to influence the outcome of the 2018 midterm elections.
Should it be legal for a taxpayer [D+R+I] funded organization to donate massive amounts of money to the D party in an effort to sway an election?


So let's get this straight. The FBI, with James Baker's intimate involvement, debated the motivation behind the president's firing of James Comey? Why? Where is the legal impetus to be concerned about such; bogus national security claims aside. The director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the president and as such the president may terminate him at any time with or without cause. Period. That's precisely how it works.

So then, what would compel the FBI to investigate the president's motivation to terminate Comey when motivation is irrelevant to his authority to fire the director? He could have fired Comey because he didn't like the color of his tie. Motivation is not germane to the argument so how can it serve as cause to investigate the president? Logically, perhaps legally, it cannot. Moreover, with all that we know about Comey and his actions, the firing was entirely appropriate. In the spirit of redundancy, the president even went as far as securing a letter from DAG Rosenstein so as to demonstrate a legal foundation for the termination.

This all deduces to what is stated in the article linked below. There were clear stakeholders involved and they were driving an ulterior agenda geared toward targeting the president. We are approaching two years into the Mueller probe and there is not a scintilla of evidence establishing any real nexus between the president and Russia. Therefore, sans a singular grain of evidence, the only card these stakeholders can play is persuasive rhetoric, which appears to be rooted in emotion. This card was played to argue in favor of investigating the president for firing Comey. This argument was counter to those held by others involved in the investigation and it all played-out with Baker as a central figure.
Unsurprisingly, this argument included FBI personnel who have since left for cause, retired or have been demoted. Now, those specific actions must be taken in accordance to FBI policy which means they were executed with cause. The inference is that the ones making the argument for investigating the president and rooting that argument in emotions are no longer employed at the FBI.

With each passing day, the depth and breadth of sedition and treason furthers.

Relevant quotes from the article linked below:

"Ratcliffe called the Baker transcript leak “selective,” adding that the full transcript of the Oct. 18 interview, which is undergoing a classification review by the FBI and the Justice Department, reveals “that in May 2017, political bias infected senior FBI leadership, and emotion — not evidence — drove their decision making.”

"A separate source said Baker told investigators the internal FBI debate over the president’s decision to fire Comey on May 9, 2017, included personnel who have since left the bureau for cause, retired, or have been demoted."


Pompeo's declaration that Venezuela should be subject to US-initiated regime change deserves more attention and digging. The US as we know, has a long history of regime change no matter the region - Middle East, South America, Eastern Europe, etc. The Deep State excels in regime change and you can see the its tactics in full display here stateside. Every bit of the effort to unseat President Trump is rooted in the experiences we have in facilitating regime change in foreign lands - from the subversive human plants/contacts, to pervasive propaganda dissemination, to questionable intelligence sharing, to complicit politicians, etc. The Deep State perfected its practice elsewhere before unleashing it on President Trump.

Now the president's Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, is calling for Maduro to be ousted in yet another regime change and once again, under the guise of 'democracy,' which should always draw attention as that expression has a history of being abused as the guise under which to engage in nefarious acts have a tendency to occur - there always has to be a selling point to the public. Oddly enough the timing is peculiar, too, as he made the statement while standing afoot in an autocratic sheikhdom in the Middle East.

Concession - Venezuela is a Marxist Socialist state in the full throws of totalitarianism, impoverishment and oppression and it's easy to agree with the Secretary. That said, caution and due diligence should be the rule until more is known about the realities behind this statement. Although a free and democratic Venezuela would be of benefit to most everyone; especially Venezuelans, the impetus, motivations and tactics should all be considered carefully.
Two revealing links: President Trump indicating that the Spygate/FISA noose is tightening and it's going to eventually ensnare some prominent yet unnamed folks -AND- the Page testimony indicating an additional "Dragon FISA;" likely not to be the last FISA warrant revealed to us.


Page - "If you were weighing resources with respect to which poses a graver threat to national security, which is more, frankly, important, there is no doubt—at least in mine or anybody else’s mind that I know—that the Russia investigation posed an incredible threat to national security, and whether we got into the Weiner laptop simply did not.”

Translation: "Russia"/Mueller were fabricated to serve purposes previously discussed and with one of them being to absorb Deep State crimes for concealment and cover-up and shield the people who committed them. In this particular testimony, the application of that strategy is indirect as she uses it to discount something real and pivot away.

Another take on her testimony might sound like this, "Remember that fake news story we concocted that also involved us committing sedition and treason; all the while executing a coup d'etat of a sitting president? Well, that contrived rubbish is way more important than any real criminal evidence about your friends (who may just kill you - they do have a track history) that reportedly is said to have tested the nerve and mettle of even the most hardened and jaded NYPD veterans."



A WaPo (CIA) narrative drop that should be of concern to us all just by examining the translated premise of it. The claim is that the president has gone to "extraordinary" measures, including placing orders on staff like interpreters, to prevent any discussion or records provision to a third party; all to keep secret five of his meetings with Putin. Of course, Democratic lawmakers are ready to assert their subpoena power to gain access to everything they can as it relates to these meetings. They further claim that, "Trump’s secrecy surrounding Putin “is not only unusual by historical standards, it is outrageous...”

Translated: securing a protected election and becoming an outlier, non-political elite, novice president; but one with a distinct message to a long-forgotten silent majority, and in the face of the corrupt DC establishment is unusual by historical standards. It too, is outrageous. So too, is the necessity to insulate from, protect against, fight against and hopefully destroy this very same DC establishment attempting to overturn his presidency.

It's the same precise establishment that fabricated the entirety of the "Russia" pretext and happens to be the contingency claiming outrage and brandishing subpoena power. How convenient - to be the source of the agitation and the critic of the response. These miscreants are crafting narrative to scrutinize the president's efforts to insulate himself from a known threat. That threat is the entirety of the "Russia" narrative. By describing security protocols as seditious or treasonous, they are justifying the continuance of Mueller and the need for more investigations; all to one end - grind it all to a halt through 2020 or if it can be managed, remove him all together. It's no holds barred, folks.

One question - What happens if what was discussed or exchanged in some or all those meetings is direct evidence antithetical to the entirety of the Democrat's narrative and in support of the president? How clever it is to take an enemy's greatest perceived strength - aggression in lockstep - and use it to facilitate their own demise.

Wouldn't that be rich?

6. Required reading - the genesis of the Steele dossier content with Nellie Ohr as the hub to that wheel and author of said content: 

7. MUST READ from CTH > bottom link.

It's highly suggested that this item is read beforehand for proper context:
Lew, FBI, Lerner, Obama and Holder - the usual suspects - conspiring in plot to assemble Obama's extensive enemies database by means of soliciting the IRS (Lerner) by the DOJ (Holder) on behalf of the White House (Obama) to produce to the FBI protected information on Obama's political opposition. The information took the form of donor list names from tax-exempt political organizations whereby list names and respective tax information were produced. Lew is implicated because his service overlaps both administrations where he was and is positioned to be intimately involved and therefore in an obvious conflict of interest.

Lew, FBI, Lerner, Obama and Holder - the usual suspects - conspiring in plot to assemble Obama's extensive enemies database by means of soliciting the IRS (Lerner) by the DOJ (Holder) on behalf of the White House (Obama) to produce to the FBI protected information on Obama's political opposition. The information took the form of donor list names from tax-exempt political organizations whereby list names and respective tax information were produced. Lew is implicated because his service overlaps both administrations where he was and is positioned to be intimately involved and therefore in an obvious conflict of interest.


Q has repeatedly advised that the scope of what is to come is 'WORLDWIDE.' Couple that with the notion that Western Europe often serves as the litmus test for what is to come stateside. Now examine Macron's loss of control over the yellow vest protest, which we must regard as a planned and intentional event, and then consider questions like this: Is widespread civil unrest coming to the US? What does the response plan look like? What are the political implications if the president were to declare martial law in response to widespread civil unrest? What would the subsequent changes in law look like, how would they effect us and what is the timeline for restoration of the Constitution? Is it possible in such a scenario that the 'president' is someone other than President Trump? That's merely a sampling of relevant questions that when logically deduced, should concern us all.
It's another reminder that even if folks are reserved in stamping Q as authentic, attention to Q's posts continue to warrant our full attention.


In realm of the alt-right media and for a long while, there's been plentiful dialogue about a contemporary Civil War. If one examines the geopolitical landscape of the past couple of decades and through a particular lens, a compelling argument can be made that the respective history and events can be woven into a tapestry that clearly depicts a real path to such a war. It's another topic labeled as 'conspiracy theory;' however, there is a substantial amount of cogent thought supported by factual evidence supporting that the topic deserves attention.


The Democrats are all hat and no cowboy when it comes to caring about people. They champion themselves as the 'party of the people' and as exemplar humanitarians but it's all a guise to deflect away from ulterior agendas rooted in power and greed. How does refusing to meet with constituents you represent comport with caring? It doesn't. Does refusing to discuss with them germane issues ongoing inside the boundaries you directly represent comport? No. Does refusing to talk about the deaths of their loved ones because of those precise issues comport? Nope. None of it comports one bit.

The Democratic duplicity can be found across the entire geopolitical landscape and myriad issues. Unfortunately, low-information Americans simply listen to what the MSM tells them and doesn't bother or know to measure the information received against the actions taken.

11. Swampy Deep State duplicity in real time:

12. “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” — FDR
— James Comey (@Comey) January 12, 2019

No, Mr. Comey, you are not in a position to make that request. Rather, we will judge you appropriately and in accordance with the RULE OF LAW. Therefore, we will consider your actions and the intent behind those actions as we let a jury of your fellow citizens determine your fate. THAT is how we shall judge you.

13. It's a sage move to regard these as pretext for what is to come and in relatively short order.


Justice Ginsburg's voting record on immigration as provided in the link below is rather telling and the details follow. So then, the nexus is Ginsburg's positions on immigration matters and Red Castle/Green Castle; the former being a reference to the US Army Corps of Engineers located in Green Castle, IN.

Undoubtedly, if the president declares a national emergency granting him unilateral power to utilize the US military and specifically, the Army Corps of Engineers out of Green Castle, IN, to construct the southern border barrier, the Left will pack the courts with litigation. It is also a forgone conclusion that at least one of those suits will find it's way to the Supreme Court; if not more than one. That immediately creates tremendous relevance for the court overall and specifically, Ginsburg's seat. Q has already indicated such; even to the extent of corruption on the court. It's also obvious by now that when Q references SCOTUS's importance, it extends well beyond Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Back to Ginsburg - her voting record demonstrates that she opposes: a) automatic deportation (can't just send them back), b) lengthy/indefinite detention (can't just lock them up) and c) states enforcing the law (Arizona) in the absence of any federal enforcement whatsoever (can't just tend to it yourself.) So what's left? This is left - just release them inside our borders. That is precisely the only remaining option that she has not opposed ergo she supports exactly that. Therefore, it's reasonable to think that Ginsburg must be removed before any real traction on the southern border can begin. It also explains the close proximity in time with the president's announcement on considering the national emergency option in relation to Ginsburg's deteriorating health. It's either yet another coincidence or the two are directly correlated.

In, summary, it translates to Ginsburg's replacement being at least nominated, the president declaring a national emergency at the southern border (those two may swap in order) and then authorizing the military to construct the barrier; all with the court set and ready to uphold every bit of it. That appears to be a campaign promise filled, a significant Q proof confirmed and perhaps another feather in the cap of Q's authenticity.

Sidebar - It is also guaranteed that immigration/southern border security will be a driving force behind the canned smear campaign that is most assuredly awaiting the nominee, no matter whom that may be.


This is an excellent read although it may be deflating to those excited about the possibility that the president will build the southern barrier by means of a National Emergency declaration. Regardless, this is rooted in strong Constitutionalism and there's a statement from the author saying it serves as a genuine warning and not a criticism of the president. That's precisely correct - no matter who occupies the Oval Office, the powers that would be inherited by the Executive are not to be taken lightly or for granted. Their very nature are undemocratic and unilateral so as to provide the necessary means by which to act in such a scenario. To be effective, those powers rest on a knife's edge teetering between appropriate and abusive. Abusive in this scenario leads to the beginning or furtherance of a totalitarian, authoritative state that has a direct pipeline to enact further legislation - just sign it into law.

The point is that such a declaration is something about which to be vigilant as a citizen. It's something to monitor with a vested interest. It's something with which good people will do good and bad people could do bad. Given the old mantra that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, it's sage to look at EVERYTHING through a discerning lens. The best way to have confidence in someone who might inherit such unilateral authority is to vet them yourself.

Sidebar and something to consider - once these national emergency unilateral actions become rooted in legal precedence and begin to escalate; and understanding that such legal powers transfer to subsequent administrations, how long is it before a president who stands antithetical to the 2nd Amendment unilaterally attempts to eliminate it and confiscate guns?


Take a look at the geopolitical landscape - China and Mexico are topics on a daily basis and on a multitude of issues. Now consider that Mexican drug cartels are using Chinese chemicals to produce fentanyl as a synthetically manufactured opioids to fuel the current and devastating US opioid crisis.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog