Monday, May 30, 2016

Obama Continues the Communist Peace Offensive by Calling for an End to Nuclear Weapons

In what could almost be described as an act of pure spite, President Obama honors those who fought on the side of the enemy during World War Two while discrediting America in his usual fashion during his visit to Hiroshima. Describing the actions we took to end the world war as evil, President Obama acted as if it was the United States engaging in wars of Imperialism and not Japan.  It was the actions the Japanese took on the morning of December 7, 1941, when they mercilessly attacked Pearl Harbor, which brought the United States into the war. Until that time the United States had taken a non-interventionist position.  President Obama went further by calling for a world without nuclear weapons, attempting to give the impression that voluntary disarmament would be a sign of strength.

This has been a long time goal of the Communists, creating the illusion that disarmament by the United States would lead to a more peaceful world.  The following passage is from the list of forty five goals established by the Communist Party U.S.A.-
  1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
Sadly, this is a goal Obama is accomplishing as we now have the smallest military since before entering World War Two. The U.S. Army is expecting to cut its forces to 450,000 and the Navy will be reduced to only 280 ships. While we are shrinking our military to almost dangerous levels, Communist countries like China seem to be building theirs up. Could developing the illusion that U.S. disarmament is a sign of strength actually be psychological propaganda designed to weaken us as a military power?  According to a report submitted to Congress by the House of Un-American Activities in 1951 entitled “The Communist Peace Offensive: A Campaign to Disarm and Defeat the United States,” the answer to that question is a resounding yes. Joseph Stalin believed that Communism and Capitalism could not co-exist, and he knew that militarily, the Soviet Union was no match for the might of the United States armed forces, so he developed a method of psychological warfare designed to lower our guard and give the appearance that it was the United States that carried out wars of aggression and that communism stood for peace. Consider the following testimony given to congress by former State Department advisor John Dulles.

“It is my opinion that the leaders of communism are, before venturing an open war, trying to create a public opinion of the world to believe that they are the nations that stand for peace and that we are the nation that stands for war, and they have made very good progress in doing that.”

To say they have made good progress is an understatement. The fact that millions of voters will willingly vote for Bernie Sanders, when he is unable to describe why socialist policies led to the destruction of not only Venezuela, but any country that ever tried socialism is, in this writer’s opinion, proof that this plan is very much in play.
Since the beginning of President Obama’s presidency he has continuously discredited American history and our constitution in an effort to portray America and her people as racist, intolerant and uncompassionate. These are also goals of the communist party.
  1. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
  2. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
These two goals, along with many others, aid in the efforts to give the impression that America is the problem in the world and that communism may be the solution.  Consider the following passage from Brain Washing: A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics .

By psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward. To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression and scientific turmoil. At last a weary populace can seek peace only in our offered Communist State, at last only Communism can resolve the problems of the masses.

In this paragraph it is admitted that the social controllers depend on environmental manipulation to create chaos in an effort to convince the masses that only communism can be a solution.  Everything that is happening in our society is a deliberately planted seed designed to cause turmoil and hopelessness to create the necessary conditions where people will accept communism because everything about their country has been discredited to the point that they have come to believe the United States is responsible for many of the world’s problems. For instance, climate change is America’s fault because we have exploited poor countries for fossil fuels and other resources, leaving those countries without the ability to develop their own economies while also polluting the world to the point that our carbon emissions are creating catastrophic climate change. That is the epitome of the term scientific turmoil. Distrust has been rooted amongst the masses by pitting every social group against one another and portraying certain classes as having “privilege” while others are oppressed, and economic depression has been ensured by giving monies from the public treasuries, paid by working taxpayers, to those that have been taught they are entitled because life is unfair. The end result is more people drawing from the treasury than people paying into it. All of this and more is creating the illusion that something must be done and in the shadows awaits someone offering communism as the solution.

It is the opinion of this writer that everything we are witnessing in our nation is a deliberate application of the communist peace offensive plan. Our nation has been discredited to the point, through education and the efforts of the state controlled media, that the younger generations graduating from our universities are despising their own heritage, demanding that they be protected from offensive speech, begging for wealth redistribution and demanding that government take care of them from cradle to grave. Would this be happening if there wasn’t an effort to discredit our country and people were being taught the principles of liberty and patriotism?

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Running Guns and Allowing Violence: Forcing U.N. Arms Treaty Intervention

In September of 2013 Secretary of State John Kerry signed the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. While this treaty has not been ratified by the senate there is reason to speculate that there will be a final push to implement the global gun control scheme before President Obama leaves office.  Barry has said on several occasions that a failure to implement gun control has been one of his biggest regrets as president. Many people have insisted, in an effort to alleviate fears of UN troops confiscating weapons mind you, that the U.N. treaty would in no way affect the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. There are provisions in the text which would lead one to believe that an individual’s right is protected, such as the following paragraph-

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law.

There are several problems with this paragraph.  For instance, there is nothing in this description that recognizes an individual’s right, or responsibility, to defend their lives or the lives of their loved ones. In fact, self defense is not a recognized human right in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. Secondly, who is defining legitimate trade and lawful ownership? The United Nations would be which means there would likely be a board of U.N. bureaucrats deciding who is qualified to own firearms. Finally, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was not written to protect recreational use of certain firearms, it exists explicitly so that free men have the means of preserving liberty by keeping and bearing arms which are consistent with modern military purposes .

There are other parts of the treaty that are a bit more alarming. For instance, Article 16 allows for individual nation states to apply for assistance in implementing the treaty if they are having trouble doing so. In other words, if a nation cannot implement the treaty that nation may appeal to the United Nations for legislative or financial assistance in implementing the treaty in that particular nation.
  1. In implementing this Treaty, each State Party may seek assistance including legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity-building, and technical, material or financial assistance. Such assistance may include stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, model legislation, and effective practices for implementation. Each State Party in a position to do so shall provide such assistance, upon request.
  2. Each State Party may request, offer or receive assistance through, inter alia, the United Nations, international, regional, sub regional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations, or on a bilateral basis.
  3. A voluntary trust fund shall be established by States Parties to assist requesting States Parties requiring international assistance to implement this Treaty. Each State Party is encouraged to contribute resources to the fund.
 Notice that the first paragraph also suggests that nations may seek help in disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs? That’s an interesting revelation considering that President Obama and Loretta Lynch are paving the way for foreign troops to police American cities through the Strong Cities Network.

This article really isn’t about the treaty itself but the fact that on May 31st the U.N. will be releasing its first annual report concerning the global implementation of the treaty.
It would be interesting to see how the U.S. scores on this report seeing as though we have a president who has failed to pass his gun control initiatives. Not only that, he also seems to be deliberately arming Isis, running guns to Mexican drug cartels and even more recently, he lifted a decades old arms embargo on Vietnam in an effort to keep China in check.  The President has also done absolutely nothing to address the real causes of gun violence in the inner cities, leaving young black children at the mercy of gang warfare. This leaves the impression that the U.S. has an out of control gun epidemic even though we all know this isn’t true. President Obama is deliberately trying to discredit the United States by allowing this type of violence to run rampant. He is attempting to portray the U.S. as a gun running nation in an effort to get the United Nations to intervene and force the implementation of the treaty because the U.S. Senate refuses to ratify it.

While many may view this as an outrageous conspiracy theory it isn’t that far from the realm of probability. President Obama operates using the Hegelian Dialectic, which is the Problem-Reaction-Solution strategy. This was apparent when Rham Emanual said that you should never let a good crisis go to waste. Also, the communists once devised a plan where they would deliberately portray the United States as an imperialist, war mongering nation and present the Soviet Union, or communism, as a system that promotes global peace and cooperation. This plan was called the communist peace offensive and it was presented to the U.S. Congress in 1951 by John Foster Dulles, Republican advisor to the State Department.  It is the opinion of this author that we are witnessing this plan in action as President Obama has continually discredited our culture and encouraged an atmosphere of racial violence, while also suggesting we have an out of control gun problem.  The anti-gun left will eventually demand the implementation of this treaty with or without the senates ratification.
"The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of military firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus inflame the antigun lobby. This plan is well under way, and so far is working perfectly. The middle class is begging the government to do away with the 2nd amendment.” (William Cooper, Behold A Pale Horse)

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Portland Public Schools: Assisting in Global Population Reduction

john holdren

America truly is at the precipice of disaster. We have reached a point in our nation where all we held dear has been destroyed and liberty itself has been redefined as slavery and servitude as freedom. People no longer have regard for the well being of their fellow man as we seem to only accept viewpoints that validate our own, or support our particular agenda. It’s funny because for so long those on the right criticized the left for their groupthink mentality and their unwavering support for Obama. Now, they are doing the same thing with Donald Trump despite the fact that he is ever so slowly, retreating his positions to the center. This article isn’t about Donald Trump or Obama; it’s about the fact that people in this nation are so distracted by the presidential elections, reality television, paying the bills, the false “left right” paradigm and the constant stream of propaganda being fed to them that they have no idea what is going on or how to do anything about it. Former KGB agent and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov once described a process known as Ideological Subversion, which was a Soviet propaganda technique designed to undermine American values, as a process that would slowly change the perception of reality of the American people, to the point that they would have no idea how to defend their values, families and nation.  It seems this has been successful beyond anyone’s dreams as many millions of Americans are ready to surrender their basic liberties in order to regulate a naturally occurring gas, that we exhale and trees absorb in order to produce oxygen, in order to save the planet. The underlying belief is that overpopulation and the over consumption of resources is destroying the environment.

Portland Public Schools just unanimously voted to eliminate all text books that do not support the notion of manmade climate change. They admitted this move was aimed at eliminating any doubt that man is causing environmental havoc and, reinforcing the idea that drastic action is needed in order to save the Earth. Not only does the resolution call for the elimination of such textbooks, it also calls for the implementation of a curriculum that addresses the idea of climate justice. What is Climate Justice? It is the idea that the United States and its capitalist economic system are responsible for an impoverished world because we hoard resources and exploit poorer countries for our own benefit. Climate Justice is the mother of all social justice issues because it combines racial, economic and sociopolitical issues with the environment. In other words, climate change is racist.

The banning of curriculums that dispute manmade global warming is alarming for many reasons. The silencing of dissent and burning of books that contradicted anything “official” has always been one of the first moves of any dictatorial regimes. The idea that we have to accept the ludicrous notion that mans activities are causing climate change is just as alarming because the solutions being presented do little to empower man while giving government absolute control over humanity. For instance, U.N. Climate Chief, Christina Figueres has gone on the record and called for a reduction of the world’s population in order to combat global warming. She also stated that a global communist government would be needed to assist in these efforts because a communist model would be unimpeded by a political process that allows for dissenting opinions. She notes that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. congress prevents any meaningful legislation and that Chinas communist government is much more effective.

Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, expresses many of the same concerns about population growth and its relation to global warming in his book Ecoscience; Population, Resources, Environment. In this book Holdren discusses many ways in which the idea of overpopulation can be addressed. Forced abortion and sterilizations are acceptable ideas as is the notion that a global communist regime be put in place to enforce them. On page 738 Holdren discusses the idea of family planning and how societies should be involved in determining how many children a family may have. More alarmingly, on page 749, Holdren admits that the efforts to reduce population size has focused primarily on poor and minority communities as traditionally, these communities tend to have higher birth rates than those above the poverty rate. Consider the following passages-

The entrance of the United States government into the field of birth control through the extension of family planning services to the poor aroused a controversy quite out of proportion to its potential effect on the national birth rate, particularly in the black community, some members of which perceived it as a policy of "genocide" against racial minorities.

In the United States, birth rates have long been higher among the poor and among nonwhites (blacks, orientals, and native Americans) than among the nonpoor and among whites. High birth rates are generally associated with low economic and educational levels in most countries, including the United States. At the same time, the poor and nonwhites also have had consistently higher death rates, especially among infants and children. Above the poverty level, the birth rate difference between races diminishes, and college-educated nonwhites have fewer children than their white peers. In recent years (especially since the national family planning program was established) the birth rates of the poor and nonwhites have been declining even more rapidly than those of the population as a whole. (Holdren, pp. 749)

This is a telling admission as most abortion clinics tend be located in minority neighborhoods.  It should also be noted that more black babies are aborted in New York City than born alive. Family planning services and abortion are techniques aimed at limiting the number of births in order to control population growth. Those seeking to reduce the world’s population believe that human beings do not have a right to choose how many children they have if there is an environmental impact due to the child’s birth. On page 837, Holdren writes that individual rights must be balanced against government power in order to control population growth. In other words, people do not have rights that government does not control. He goes further to say to say that neither the U.S. constitution nor the U.N. charters on human rights guarantee any right of an individual to determine how many children they should have.

Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people -- respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included - - have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinating interest" in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society's survival depended on having more children, women could be required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted. (Holdren, pp. 837)

Holdren even admits that the idea of drugging our water and the food we eat to limit our reproductive abilities is on the table.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. (Holdren, pp.787)

Not only is the Portland School District enabling this agenda by silencing any dissent, our entire education system is indoctrinating our children with abortion rights, homosexuality and transgenderism.  They are seeking to create a world where human reproduction is completely controlled by the government in the name of saving the planet from over population and climate change. Planned Parenthood clinics are being placed in public schools and laws are being passed protecting children’s rights to privacy concerning abortions. We are being educated into supporting our own demise through propaganda designed to look humane but in the end will leave humanity enslaved to a global communist regime seeking to limit the human population to what they consider to be a manageable, or sustainable size. The idea of communists managing population and school districts silencing dissent should send warning bells down the spine of all Americans because throughout the twentieth century communist regimes murdered 160,000,000 people that had a differing opinion than the one they wished to impose upon society.  It is unlikely that we will be able to reverse this because people are simply too distracted by meaningless entertainment and nonsensical issues that prevent us from seeing exactly what is going on.

Below are the list of contacts if wish to discuss this issue with the Portland School Board.<>;<>;<>;<>;<>;<>;<>;<>;

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

A Moral-less Enemy is Impossible to Beat

One of the most successful tactics employed by President Obama comes right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. The fourth rule of power tactics, according to Alinsky, is using your opponent’s rules against them; or rather, making them live up to their own rules. This is something that Alinsky says is very effective as he claims conservatives can no more follow their own rules than Christians can live up to Christianity. When dealing with the left you have to understand that they are operating from a completely different moral base than you would expect.  To them there is no absolute, there is no God and the ends truly do justify the means. To put it simply, the left is willing to corrupt themselves in order to bring about what they call, mass salvation. They think they know what is best for mankind and that a fear of corrupting one’s self is a sign that you fear taking action and do not care about society.  In other words they are willing to corrupt themselves because they do not believe corrupted means will corrupt the ends.

To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. Alinsky pp. 24

Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation;” he doesn’t care enough about the people to be corrupted for them. Alinsky pp. 25

To defeat an enemy who is operating from this type of moral base is almost impossible because the radical left knows that Christians will not allow themselves to be corrupted. In other words, they can fight an unfair fight because they have no moral base and we continue to get our noggins clobbered because we won’t stoop to their level.  Republicans have refused to stand up against the Obama regime out of a fear of being called racist, or being made to appear uncompassionate and unwilling to compromise. This is a tactic that the Democrats have employed very successfully, to the say the least.

The most frustrating element to all of this is the notion that Republicans/conservatives love their country yet they are unwilling to employ these tactics against the left even though it would be incredibly easy to do. For instance, President Obama recently announced that the acts of violent jihadists were our fault because we criticize Islam. In other words, Obama is making excuses for terrorists by justifying their actions because they can’t handle a little criticism. This has been the story after every recent Islamic terrorist attack. The Charlie Hebdo shootings were the result of an offensive cartoon, the Benghazi attack was allegedly (at first) the result of an offensive video.  So, what he is essentially saying is that Islamists are big cry babies who get their feelings hurt when someone criticizes them but they have no problem showing their hypocrisy by committing murder in response. He is employing the same tactic with Black Lives Matter. Their actions are justified because they are supposedly, oppressed.

Well, if it is justified for Radical Islamists to shoot cartoonists because the cartoon is offensive and it’s alright if Black Lives Matter threatens nationwide riots because Donald Trump pretends to hurt their feelings, then when will it be alright for us to be offended by continually being called racist, taking our jobs away, watching our flags be burned, lying about our culture and allowing perverts into the bathroom with our daughters? Therein lies the point, the left gets away with what they do because if we respond, and act the same way they do we are setting ourselves up for failure because to us violence is wrong, to them, violence is a means to an end. Conservatives watched in shock as people acting without conscience burned down their own city in response to the Michael Brown shooting while the communist left, who paid them to do it mind you, believed they were creating a more just society. They paid no mind to the hundreds of people already living in poverty, that lost property and suffered injuries because they believe the ends justify the means.  It isn’t any different when considering the current state of black America. Under President Obama black Americans are losing as opposed to gaining ground. President Obama is a community organizer and it is likely that the Democrat party is intentionally keeping black Americans poor in order to use them as social props as they push a socialist agenda. If keeping them poor brings us closer to his grand dreams of wealth redistribution, then it is completely justified.

This is the real face of the Democrat party. A belief that the ends justify the means no matter what those ends are. It doesn’t matter if people get hurt as long as the agenda moves along. The left knows that we will not stoop to this level and fight back because they are playing on our compassion and our values, the threat of government crackdown and martial law also looms. If the left is so willing to use these destructive means to bring down a system that they despise, doesn’t it seem like we should be willing to do a little more to save a nation we allegedly love?  At some point we are going to be faced with deciding whether or not our country and our children’s future are worth taking a stand for. We must be able to do this while keeping the moral highground. 

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Gender Identity: Marxist Plan to Destroy the Family

This past week America got a glimpse into what was really meant when Barack Obama said we were five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.  The president demanded that school districts across the country allow boys who identify as female have access to girls’ locker rooms, bathrooms and even college dorms. Many people have been warning that Obama has a lot of time left in office to push through some of his most, shall we say, radical ideas in his quest for social change. People would have never imagined back in 2008 however, that this man would one day issue decrees that would ultimately redefine humanity itself by pushing the issue of transgenderism into the forefront of everybody’s consciousness.

The liberal left would have you believe that allowing transgendered people to use the restroom of their choice is a civil rights issue comparable to the struggle black Americans have faced.  To them America is an oppressive society that clings to the idea of a Gender Binary System. This is the idea that gender itself is nothing more than a social construct based off a person’s biological sex and that by separating gender into two distinct classes, male and female, society is engaging in gender oppression. This means that we are forcing individuals into the expected norms and social mores of the biological sex assigned to them at birth. The left uses the term “gender identity” in an attempt to differentiate between the ways a person self identifies and their actual gender. In fact, they claim that gender itself is defined not by the individual’s biological anatomy but by a complex relationship between their actual biology, how they self-identify, and the behaviors they exhibit that project that particular gender identification as well as the expected social roles of that gender.

These ideas are Marxist in origin as Karl Marx viewed the nuclear family as a vehicle of class oppression. In a civilized society the most basic institution of self governance is the family structure. Marxists on the other hand, view this structure as one that exploits the labor of women and reduces her to nothing more than a servant of men. They claim that because women are viewed as being the nurturer and caretaker of the home they are being oppressed. This was the idea behind Betty Friedans “The Feminist Mystique” as well. While Friedan started the feminist movement masquerading as a typical suburban housewife, the truth is radically different. She was actually a radical left wing activist who pushed communist propaganda for nearly twenty five years before publishing her book.  This means that she already held a biased, Marxist view on the traditional family and that she wrote her book with the intent of pushing change that would break the traditional view Americans held towards the family as an institution. The following is the first paragraph from “The Feminist Mystique.”

In her article entitled “On the Social Construction of Sex” Freya Brown, a Marxist, writes that the idea of gender is a set of baseless myths designed to “reinforce and ideologically” justify the oppression of women. Again, this comes from the Marxist idea that the family is an oppressive institution that exploits the labor of women while keeping them in the societal role of mother and caretaker. Consider the following from

Some Marxists view the household as an institution that functions to support capitalism and it permits or even encourages exploitation. That is, by creating and recreating sexual inequalities, and keeping women in the home with responsibility for family subsistence, emotional support and reproduction, the family helps capitalism continue to exploit labour and helps maintains stability within a system of class oppression and inequality. There are various ways in which the family and sex roles do this.

 First are the strictly economic features. So long as women have primary responsibility for reproduction (physical and socialization) and household and family maintenance, women constitute a cheap form of labour, a reserve army of labour. T hey have been a latent reserve over the last forty years, some are a short term reserve over the economic cycle, and women are a labour reserve in a generational sense. That is, the expectation that women will not be as committed to many jobs as men, with time taken off for childbearing, child care, care of elderly parents, etc., allows employers to pay women less than men. The lower status of women within society also allows women to be paid less, since some wages and salaries are structured on status considerations.

Brown also goes on to say that it is the patriarchal ideology, or the idea that men are the head of the family structure that needs to be dismantled in order to create true equality. She argues that a Marxist theory should govern society when it comes to gender identity.

At the end of the day, the sex/gender dichotomy is part of patriarchal ideology, and it is an idea that we need to break with in favor of a theory which is revolutionary and Marxist in character. The purpose of the present article is to provide an initial counter to the idea that sex assignment is “just biology.” A properly Marxist theory of sex will be more thoroughly explored in part two. Freya Brown-“On the Social Construction of Sex”

The whole purpose behind the transgender issue is not to push for civil rights, but to destroy the basic ideas behind the traditional gender structure and the institution of family. In its place would be a system based on Marxist theory where everybody is completely equal without the societal assigned pressures of having to behave according to our natural biology. Without a legal definition of sex, or male and female, there can be no family where there are traditional mothers and fathers recognized by law; therefore, the family would have been effectively neutralized.  Riki Wilchins, in his or her article entitled “We’ll win the Bathroom Battle when the Binary Burns” writes that the real struggle that gay and lesbian activists face is the hetero-binary system that queer people must inhabit. This is quite a telling admission seeing as though it was a convicted child rapist who wrote North Carolinas transgender bathroom law.  In another article entitled “Dismantling the Gender Binary System,” written by someone calling themselves Rae, it is admitted that educating people into the idea that gender is a social construct is the only way to break people from the rigid ideas of biological gender being what identifies us as individuals. This would explain why they are pushing the issue into our public school system.  By conditioning students at an early age to accept transgender individuals into their personal space, the transition into a genderless society in their later years will be easy.

This is essentially a battle between the traditional Judeo-Christian view on the role of men and women and the Marxist view. The former views men and women as being complete equals with different roles to play in society while the latter argues that believing a woman should embrace her responsibility as a mother is a form of oppression. The left believes that by destroying the idea of biological gender they will essentially be creating a world of total equality where the stigma of behaving according to society’s definition of gender is gone. If this goal is realized, and the truth of biological sex is redefined by law under the guise of transgenderism and gender identity theory, the structure of our society would also be redefined because it is the family itself that has served as the basic institution of liberty. There would be no legal definition of men and women in the traditional sense and the idea that fathers and mothers have separate but equal roles to play concerning the raising of children would thus be irrelevant and have no real meaning.  If our country is to survive at all, this is an issue that must be fought on all levels.

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Anticipating Planned Civil Unrest: The Growing Market for Riot Control Technology

In my last article I discussed the use of the Hegelian Dialectic in the creation of a national police force. Program 1033 is a deliberate attempt to militarize police, turn them loose on the citizenry and then create the demand that something must be done to reign in out of control cops. The solution of course, is the federalization of local police forces. The Hegelian Dialectic is also known as the problem-reaction-solution strategy and it is a tactic being used in almost all levels of society in an effort to discredit our culture and offer another form of government as a solution. Throughout the duration of the Obama presidency there has been one crisis after another that tears at the heart of what defines American values. The overall goal is to convince the American citizenry that American culture is unfair, bigoted and violent and Communism would be a better alternative.

Many fear that the end game of the Obama administration is the deliberate instigation of violence in order to enact gun control and ultimately, martial law. Our entire society has been turned upside down and the government has deliberately labeled patriotic Americans, veterans, pro-life groups, evangelical Christians and anybody else that opposes his control as potential extremists while virtually ignoring the real threat we face from violent jihadists. It’s almost as if he is hoping to push us into acts of violence so he can force his will upon us.  The violence that we have witnessed over the past couple of years, the Ferguson and Baltimore riots and the more recent anti-Trump rallies have all been organized and funded by George Soros front groups in an effort to meet this end. Rioters in the recent California anti-Trump rally were paid fourteen dollars and fifty cents an hour by such groups according to this Craig’s List ad.

Clyde Lewis, on his national radio show Ground Zero, brought another interesting element to this story that could ultimately prove this is all being done on purpose, not only to seize political power, but to make a lot of money. It also supports the conclusions found in the Report from Iron Mountain where a fictitious crisis would have to be created in order to keep control of the masses and fuel a peacetime economy. One of the main points from the Iron Mountain report was that war was an effective means of controlling the people to desired ends and an excellent way to keep the economy going. The social controllers feared that without war there would be no way of achieving the control they desired, so a fabricated crisis would have to be created.  Looking at society today we have a militant black power movement, ISIS, global warming and a growing effort to violently disrupt legitimate political campaigns.

The element that Clyde Lewis brought to the table was a report published by the Sandler Research group which discusses the expected growth of the Global Riot Control Systems industry. According to this report, the industry is expected to rake in over three billion dollars in sales over the next four years. The United States, China, Thailand, Iran, Egypt and Russia are all making preparations to employ this type of technology in anticipation of massive civil unrest.  According to the report, North America has one of the largest markets for this type of technology as the United States already has a militarized police force capable of employing the use of riot control gear. A great example is the preparations the city of Cleveland is making in advance of the brokered GOP convention. According to Jean Anne Esselink of the, Cleveland is expected to spend fifty million dollars on crowd control equipment in the event of a, shall we say, discontented response to such an event.  Interestingly, the event has been called a National Special Security Event and the fifty million dollars is being provided to the city of Cleveland through a federal grant.

Because the RNC has been designated as a National Special Security Event, the riot and crowd control gear will be paid for by a $50 million federal grant. Mayor Frank Jackson's administration told the City Council last month that the city plans to spend roughly $30 million of the federal funds on personnel and $20 million on equipment. (Esselink)

Why is the United States preparing for, and for that matter, expecting such civil unrest? The answer is simple, they are preparing to steal your liberty and your nation’s sovereignty, and they are becoming increasingly concerned that you will not tolerate it. They know full well that ignoring the people’s vote and installing a candidate of their choice is wrong just as they know the American people are awakening to the massive corruption that has become Washington D.C.  They have deliberately incited racial and political violence while using it as justification to build a militarized force and clamp down on our freedoms. They have discredited our culture and destroyed our children’s future with a national debt of over $19 trillion dollars which can never be repaid.  They have sold our country out for their own profit and now they are scared we are no longer blind to their criminal acts. As more of us continue to awaken the more desperate they will become, at which point we will see a vamped up effort to employ the police state against us. Looking at the projected time frame where the growth of the riot control industry is expected, I would say our time is short.