Europe is Waking Up

By

       Philip Todd

      Since the election of Donald Trump many countries in Europe, led by Germany, have found the courage to slowly begin to pull away from the western Socialist elite. The results of the elite's encouraging the influx of foreign, mostly middle eastern peoples, into European societies has been disruptive and disastrous. With the explosion of crime, especially sex crime, many countries have pulled back on allowing any immigration of this type. This goes against the elitist attempts to impose Socialism, first in all of the west, then globally. The rise of nationalism, which their media portrays as evil, is the backlash specifically from the middle class. They are beginning to lose their grip on the hearts and minds of free thinking individuals. How were they able to pull this off in the first place. The answer is fear - the enemy - Russia.

       Over the past year, British news media have published story after story claiming Russia was about to invade Europe and start World War III. The Daily Express ran three such stories in June, July, and September of 2017 alone. It wasn’t just throw away tabloids that indulged in such reckless scaremongering. The supposedly more serious Independent ran at least two stories in May and September of that year citing top military officials claiming that nuclear war could break out within 48 hours with Russia because of the latter’s “secret” invasion plans. If British media reports were to be believed, then Europe and the whole northern hemisphere should have gone up in nuclear smoke two years ago.

      That fact that NATO chiefs, Western governments, and the dutiful news media can get away with making such accusations is a disturbing sign of collective indoctrination. The irony of Western self-declared “free and independent” politicians and media behaving like an army of robots marching to war while accusing Russia of fake news is too much for words. Use your critical analytical thinking and ask ourselves this, how we have arrived at a point where supposedly respectable outlets have created a world where Vladimir Putin has managed to become the richest man in the world (Washington Post), who controls Donald Trump (Huffington Post) and masterminded his election victory (Vanity Fair) despite battling Aspergers (USA Today), and cancer (The Week)? How was Aleppo's last functioning hospital was destroyed by Russia no less than 12 times between August and November? Dealing in false news by NATO members’ media, as exemplified above, is not just wildly erroneous and unethical, it is illustrative of an orchestrated propaganda campaign to demonize Russia and recklessly create an atmosphere for global war.

      But now, many people, at least in the developed world, are starting to see through elitist owned mainstream media. They’ve been caught red handed ‘faking’ and lying about major global events on multiple occasions, and now, some of their employees are leaving their jobs and telling the truth about this propaganda that dominates a large portion of mainstream media. The outsider, Russian President Vladimir Putin, has also called out the desire by the elite for a New World Order, which would see the “powers that be” use “imaginary and mythical” threats to control us. He is many things but he is wiser than our leaders would have us believe. His statement this week at the G20 Summit in Osaka, Japan that in the wake of all the problems in Europe that “liberalism has ‘become obsolete” and that liberalism is in conflict with "the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population..." elicited huge condemnation from the elites media mouthpieces.

      German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she would not cease to be committed to maintaining good relations with Russia, despite differing opinions on various issues. The 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act should stay in force, Merkel also said. “It is essential not to give up on the Russia-NATO Act, even taking into account these difficult times. We have common interests on this, and should cooperate,” she added. The 1997 Founding Act states that Russia and NATO “will build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security,” and specifically says that the two sides do not consider themselves adversaries.

      This is not a pro-Russian piece, it is a common sense piece trying to rise above the propaganda that many refuse to see. The argument that Putin must be an enemy, because he doesn’t share Western values. But how could he? Russia was never fully welcome in the Western world order, much less able to participate in it on equal terms. It is looked upon by the elites, not as an equal, but as a prize to be won. Using fear, news media organizations in NATO member countries have no qualms about repeating unfounded, reckless claims of an imminent invasion of Europe by the Russian military, even threatening to ignite World War Three, but when it comes to Russian media presenting valid alternative perspectives on a range of international issues, the Western alliance chokes up with accusations of Russian “fake news.” This is just one example of the daily distortion about Russian relations that is perpetrated in the Western media. If any side is guilty of peddling fake news, it is the Western news media of the NATO military alliance, And they are doing it on an industrial scale.

* Phillip Todd is the American Constitutionalist's international correspondent.

California: A Socialist Petri Dish

by

       Zeno Potas

      In recent years, we’ve been hearing more and more about the problem of wealth inequality in America. To hear the liberal Democrats explain the problem, Republicans want to steal from the poor and middle class and give that money to the rich. To reach the goal of Socialist Communism, this is exactly the leftist way to accomplish that goal, so why are they blaming the Republicans and the right for doing this?

      This is a smoke and mirror tactic right out of the playbook of Saul Alinsky. Alinsky was a radical Marxist strategist and community organizer. His leading "weapons" were weapons of mass distraction, misinformation, radical protest and blaming the other guy for whatever you (the liberal politician or activist) are guilty of. Alinsky actually counseled radical leftists to look in the mirror and whatever you see, blame the other guy for doing or being that exact same thing. So, if you’re a crook, blame the other guy for being a crook. If you’re a corrupt politician, call your opponent a corrupt politician. If you’ve ruined the economy, blame your opponent for ruining the economy. And of course, if you’re in bed with Russia, blame the other guy for being in “collusion” with Russia. Sound familiar?

      This type of behavior is most evident in the strongholds of the coastal leftist elite and none more than in the state of California. There rests the power of media, Hollywood, and it’s hangers on. Celebrities walking goose-step in line with the Socialist agenda, either by choice or of fear for their careers if they don’t, spewing their opinions out to the world every day as if these fortunate ones are sages that have all the answers to our nations problems – and much of America listens. California, many believe, is so progressive and forward thinking with various social policies that the rest of the states will follow their lead. They have all the answers but what is the reality of their views and actions in their own backyard? If these liberal policies actually made any sort of progress correcting the various inequities that they’re alleged to do, big government utopias like California would be progressive beacons of hope for the American left – they are not. Despite having the fifth-largest economy in the world, California is one of the worst states in the nation in terms of wealth inequality. The middle class is disappearing in California as wealth gap grows. With a tax system that favors those who are already wealthy, the middle class is leaving the state in droves. California society now represents a modern feudal system of robber barons and the poor - Classic Socialism. 

    

      How is it “helping” it’s citizens? Despite all the wealth in the state and the Democrat control of state government, California actually ranks as the poorest state in the country after costs of living are factored in. A whopping 19 percent of Californians live below the poverty line. Californians represent a third of all Americans on welfare. The average monthly cost of rent in the state is 43 percent higher than the national average. Nearly a third of Californians spend more than half of their earnings on housing. Electricity rates burdened by green initiatives and regulation that grew 500 percent faster than the national average from 2011 to 2017.” 

 

      California is the fourth most unequal state in the union with so many homeless who face diseases like typhus and hepatitis which have even infected civil servants and police officers that try to assist. The number of people living on the streets in California increased by nearly 14 percent to more than 130,000 in 2017. Homelessness is so bad in the elite controlled areas that cities like San Francisco that they have an app that helps them track the massive amounts of human feces on the sidewalk. Development and construction restrictions mean that California cities are much more expensive for the poor Proposed housing and shelters for the poor have been knocked down by the rich elite who don’t want them “in our neighborhoods.”

      Some of their ideas border on the absurd. A perfect example is the recent passage of an act that will entitle free healthcare to all residents whether American citizens or not. The state will tax those who do not have health insurance to pay for the it. How does someone who does not have health insurance, most likely because they can’t afford it, pay for others to have it? It would seem that more lower and middle class people will be leaving this Socialist utopia.

      If liberal policies actually made any sort of progress correcting the various inequities that they’re alleged to do, big government utopias like California would be progressive beacons of hope for the American left. The state has long been fortunate to be the center of the booming technology sector. With the mega rich and upper class driving its economy, but California leaves the rest of its’ population behind. The Socialist elite have used the Alinsky method to perfection. With a A socio-cultural-political structure in place the individual is bombarded, to the point of psychical saturation, with self-serving, elitist manufactured media content. Members of the Hollywood left don’t want to listen, discuss, or even see a dissenting viewpoint that challenges their own comfortable echo chamber. It’s ironic that an industry that constantly talks about diversity is so judgmental, hateful and utterly rigid in its groupthink. They encourage violent removal of opposing views as they continue to demonize the other side of the political spectrum for all of the their state’s and the nation’s problems.

      Californians have become the most successfully psychologically colonized citizens on planet earth. On cue, they are prone to parrot the self-serving lies of their Leftist's cynical elite. The continuous one-sided propaganda and fear of retaliation drives the lower and middle class to blindly vote Democrat accelerating themselves towards more poverty and their own demise. There was once a time when the lower classes were Hollywood’s heroes, rebelling against the rich pompous windbags who wanted to keep them down. But that’s changed. Today’s elitists are those pompous windbags, and they are terrified of the truth that their ideas of governing have always failed and there is no utopia for the masses, only for them. They will pay any cost, fabricate any fact, and incite violence to smother any chance of rebellion of the people that they desperately want to keep quiet and submissive. This is the two class system of Socialism. Comrades of California, Saul Alinski would be proud.

Free Thought Struggles in a Society of Propaganda

by

       George Sontag

      Propaganda stifles free thought. Our education system has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought. The role of the educator is to teach young minds how to infer what actually happened from the any biased account of either side and to instill in them the awareness that everything in media today is one-sided and more or less untrue. That task is all the more urgent today, when the old role

of the newspapers televised news has been largely taken over by incessant opinion-streams, masquerading as facts, barraging us online and off with the false certainty of their respective version of reality posing as truth. One of the things that should be taught in schools must be the habit of weighing evidence, and the practice of not giving full assent to propositions which there is no reason to believe true. In most schools, we don’t have that.

   

       Yet the methods of increasing the degree of truth in our beliefs are well known; they consist in hearing all sides, trying to ascertain all the relevant facts, controlling our own bias by discussion with people who have the opposite bias, and cultivating a readiness to

discard any hypothesis which has proved inadequate. This distinction between truth and meaning is vital, especially today, as political propaganda and the “alternative facts” establishment manipulate a public that would rather know than think. The media elite prey on the desire for the certainty of instant meaning, among those unwilling to engage in the work of critical thinking necessary for arriving at real truth. They discard the idea that truth is measured by its correspondence with reality and not by its correspondence with one’s personal agendas, comfort zones, and preexisting beliefs.

We need to end that.

      Education should have two objects: first, to give definite knowledge — reading and writing, languages and mathematics, and so on, not nonsensical subjects that do nothing for the nation; secondly, to create those mental habits which will enable people to acquire knowledge and form sound judgments for themselves. Unfortunately our institutions are set up to impart information without imparting intelligence and designed not to give true knowledge, but to make the people pliable to the will of their masters. We need an education system that fosters critical thinking rather than conformity. Most don’t have that.

      The beginnings of political and cultural propaganda begins in elementary school, with the teaching of a history told by those in power, and results in the widespread manipulation of public opinion. Thought is not free and truth is obscured if all the arguments on one side of a controversy are perpetually presented as attractively as possible, while the arguments on the other side can only be discovered by diligent search. Sound bite propaganda appeals to emotion rather than reason. The objection to propaganda is not only its appeal to unreason, but still more the unfair advantage which it gives to the rich and powerful. Most don’t realize that.

      Education should have for one of its aims to teach people only to believe propositions when there is some reason to think that they are true. We must have, as Bertrand Russell called it, “the will to doubt” and extolled it as our greatest self-defense against propaganda. Our institutions do not teach this. They teach credulity, the readiness or willingness to believe, on slight or uncertain evidence. Credulity is a greater evil in the present day than it ever was before, because, owing to the growth of the Leftist conformity from our universities, it is much easier than it used to be to spread misinformation. The spread of misinformation is more important than ever to the holders of power. Most don’t see that.

      Thought is not “free” when penalties are incurred by

the holding or not holding of certain opinions, or by

giving expression to one’s belief or lack of belief on certain matters. The exorcising of a certain point of view which is happening on social platforms is a perfect example. Propaganda is not only untruths that are injected into the mainstream, it is also when real truth is left out. We ALL need to see that.

How We Got Here

by

       George Sontag

      The Supreme Court has ruled that the separation of powers is integral to the Constitution not to preserve the prerogatives of each branch of government but to divide governmental powers among the branches so as to keep power diffused -- and thereby limited and protective of personal freedom. There are those in government who do not accept that formula for equality. Going back to after the election of 1964 our two elected branches of government, each control by the Democrats, had worked to expand the their power in Washington by weakening the president's political control of that sprawling bureaucracy and strengthening Congress' hand in managing it.

      In 1978 the ethics in government act passed by Congress established the independent counsel statute. This legislation was justified on the grounds that, after the Watergate affair, the executive branch must be subordinate to law. That, however, was just an illusion

to mask its real political purpose, which was to insulate the permanent, unelected government from political control. The independent counsel statute was devised a stand as a bulwark against any president or senior executive branch official who dared threaten a centralized executive bureaucracy. No president did until the election of 2016 when an anti-establishment candidate arose to challenge the status quo. Although given no chance to win the establishment and by using their president of questionable legality, the powers that be decided to destroy the candidate, the reputation, the man who dared raise issues that were uncomfortable to them and to cement their certain victory. The Democratic party elite and their backers, paid for false evidence, used the mis-guided patriotism of their followers to exacerbate his past, used the media to accredit false assumptions, and used secret courts to slander and accuse their rival of treason! Then, even against these tactics the unimaginable happened to this deep state/shadow government – they lost the election.

      Panic set in across Washington and into the mansions of their Leftist backers. After the election of President Trump there were many un-elected long-time establishment officials who saw a real danger to their cabal. For many years we, at The American Constitutionalist called them “The Men in the Shadows,” which President Trump calls, the “Deep State.” In their last months in control of the White House, refusing to accept the results of the election, their department of (in)justice set in motion a plan to limit and destroy the new duly elected president. As a former prosecutor stated, “The department of justice is an institution basted with a formidable resources, including its authority over the FBI. It is also often the beneficiary a thinly veiled yet presumed allegiance with most of the federal courts in which the attorneys operate. As a result given enough time, in most cases, the DOJ is empowered the via favorable ruling and otherwise to access, manipulate, and maneuver the federal laws, rules, regulations, and procedures not to mention witness testimony in whatever ways it made the necessary to ultimately bring the most of those it’s targets to heal, perhaps even a president.

       President Trump, by promising to use as executive power to bring the executive bureaucracy under control, posed a danger to the political establishment. In response to the establishment struck back. In his last months in office Mr Obama used his power antagonistically at the direction of his handlers. The unmasking of sources and putting into place bureaucratic roadblocks to thwart the incoming administration was intense and to top it off, they resorted to political scandal.

    

      "If to understand a political scandal fully, one must take into account all of the interests of those involved. The problem is that these interests and the players remain hidden which is precisely why it is so tempting for partisans, particularly if they are at the political disadvantage, to resort to scandal to attack their opponents. Scandals arise not as a means of exposing corruption, but if it as a means of attacking political foes while obscuring the political differences that are at issue. This is specially likely to occur in the aftermath of elections that threaten the authority of the established order. In such circumstances scandal provides a way for defenders of the status quo to undermine the legitimacy of those who have been elected on a platform challenging the status quo."* If successful it takes the election away from the electorate. Thus was born the Russian interference scandal.

      There was a tremendous mobilization of partisan opinion against Trump, but very little partisan mobilization in his defense as the Republican elite did not think of him as one of their own, but as an outsider who was there to rock the boat of D.C. elite which included them. The political and intellectual elites of both parties came quickly to agree that the attempt to dismantle what had been built posed a threat. His actions could also be spun as executive abuse of power, so the leaks from the Deep State begun. They knew that bits of information leaked selectively over the course of the year or more would help shape public opinion in ways the prosecution could not. Using their press merely served as a conduit by which the hidden bureaucracy could undermine the authority of the elected chief executive. This explains why the deep social and cultural division intensified after the 2016 election that had shocked all of the Washington establishment. To resort to scandal in this way is thus an admission that the scandalmongers no longer believe they are able to win politically.

      Political scandals sooner or later are transformed into legal dramas. The appointment of Robert Mueller on May 17, 2017 was the beginning of the next phase. Illegally appointed by deep state holdovers the prosecutors and judges involved violated the procedural requirements that ensure impartiality acting instead as partisans opposed to the president. These are the prosecutors, judges, and bureaucrats who make up the permanent and un-elected government, and are not the people's elected representatives. The Constitutionalists, who exist outside these organized interests, sensed that they had been disenfranchised and that the government no longer operated on behalf of the public with the common good.

      We have seen since the election, an attempt to destroy an anti establishment president using illegal rather than political process. After a two year investigation that turned up no evidence against the president, but revealed many questions about what exactly happened and who were responsible. The Guardians of the status quo in the permanent government and the media have defined the half truths and warrentless assumptions so successfully that a full and proper understanding of the situation is likely impossible. The guilty elite will once again be spared. There is a cover-up but not the one they are harping about. Smoke and mirrors, my fellow Americans, smoke and mirrors.

*John Marini, author and professor of political science, University of Nevada

The Attorney General is the Man of the Moment

by

       Zeno Potas

      After the American people have endured 8 years of the past president’s Department of IN-Justice that thumbed it’s nose up at the Constitution and the rule of law, the appointment of William Barr seems refreshing and hopeful that the Republic has not perished quite yet. His demeanor and even-handed approach to the position seems to re-establish credibility to the position much to the chagrin of the Left and their poison pen media.

      In a recent televised interview he spoke of what he sees as, although he does not call it this, a coup attempt and an attempt at undermining the entire country and the Constitution by high officials within the government. Since this idea is one that President Trump has been railing about for years, the Left is attacking him as a lackey for the president. Decide for yourselves if this sounds like a stooge or perhaps the last honest man in Washington? Being at the end of his career and with nothing to loose, we feel that more than ever that he might be exactly the right person to navigate the country through this tumultuous period.

On his appointment:

      “I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don’t care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that’s antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn’t make any difference.”

On whether the Mueller report was biased:

      Mr. Mueller “said that he could not say that the president was clearly did not violate the law, which of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law and so we applied the standards we would normally apply. We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction. As a matter of law, we didn’t agree with the legal analysis- a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers and so we applied what we thought was the right law but then we didn’t rely on that. We also looked at all the facts, tried to determine whether the government could establish all the elements and as to each of those episodes we felt that the evidence was deficient. We would have to prove corrupt intent, the report itself points out that one of the likely motivations here was the president’s frustration with Comey saying something publicly and saying a different thing privately and refusing to correct the record.”

On criticism the he is protecting the president: 

      “Well, we live in a hyper-partisan age where people no longer really pay attention to the substance of what’s said but as to who says it and what side they’re on and what it’s political ramifications are. The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance and I’m going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts and I realize that’s intention with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically. So I think it just goes with the territory of being the attorney general in a hyper-partisan period of time.”

On the spying on the Trump campaign:

        “Was enough was done? Probably not. You know, I think Bob Mueller did some impressive work in his investigation, you know, identifying some of the Russian hackers and their influence campaign and you sort of wonder if that kind of work had been done starting in 2016, things could have been a lot different. I have no idea (why). That’s one of the things I’m interested in looking at you know– I’m wondering what exactly was the response to it if they were alarmed. Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump Campaign and look, I think if we, are we are worried about foreign influence in the campaign? We should be because the heart of our system is the peaceful transfer of power through elections and what gives the government legitimacy is that process. And if foreign elements can come in and affect it, that’s bad for the republic. But by the same token, it’s just as, it’s just as dangerous to the continuation of self-government and our republican system, republic that we not allow government power, law enforcement or intelligence power, to play a role in politics, to intrude into politics, and affect elections. There were counterintelligence activities undertaken against the Trump Campaign. And I’m not saying there was not a basis for it, that it was legitimate, but I want to see what that basis was and make sure it was legitimate.”

      “I think it’s important to understand what basis there was for launching counterintelligence activities against a political campaign, which is the core of our second amendment- I’m sorry, the core of our first amendment liberties in this country. And what was the predicate for it? What was the hurdle that had to be crossed? What was the process- who had to approve it? And including the electronic surveillance, whatever electronic surveillance was done. And was everyone operating in their proper lane? And I’ve selected a terrific career prosecutor from the department who’s been there over thirty years, he’s now the U.S. attorney.”

On how this happened:

      “Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don’t realize that what they’re doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and insensitive than everybody else. They can- in their own mind, they can have those kinds of motives. And sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don’t realize. The fact that today people just seem to brush aside the idea that it is okay to you know, to engage in these activities against a political campaign is stunning to me especially when the media doesn’t seem to think that it’s worth looking into. They’re supposed to be the watchdogs of, you know, our civil liberties. ...the media reaction is strange. Normally the media would be interested in letting the sunshine in and finding out what the truth is…... but I do and I will.

On his attempt to get to the truth:

      “I had a lot of questions about what was going on. I assumed I’d get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions, and that some of the facts that- that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened. That’s all I really will say. Things are just not jiving,”

On who he thinks are responsible:

      “I think the activities were undertaken by a small group at the top which is one of the- probably one of the mistakes that has been made instead of running this as a normal bureau investigation or counterintelligence investigation. It was done by the executives at the senior level out of headquarters. I’m just not going to get into the individual names at this point. But I just view that- I don’t view it as a bureau wide issue. And I will say the same thing for other intelligence agencies.”

On the agency’s communications:

      “Well it’s hard to read some of the texts with and not feel that there was gross bias at work and they’re appalling... and on their face they were very damning and I think if the shoe was on the other foot we could be hearing a lot about it. If those kinds of discussions were held you know when Obama first ran for office, people talking about Obama in those tones and suggesting that “Oh that he might be a Manchurian candidate for Islam or something like that.” You know some wild accusations like that and you had that kind of discussion back and forth, you don’t think we would be hearing a lot more about it?”

On whether this behavior is a danger to the Republic:

      “In my mind, they are, sure. I mean, republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state. And you know, there is that tendency that they know better and that, you know, they’re there to protect as guardians of the people. That can easily translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official.”

On the president:

      “I think one of the ironies today is that people are saying that it’s President Trump that’s shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that, it is hard, and I really haven’t seen bill of particulars as to how that’s being done. From my perspective the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.”

      Despite William Barr’s past association with the Deep State this man seems to want to get to the truth. As the underlying powers that be attempt now to discredit and destroy his reputation, time will tell where this leads and where we go as a nation.