Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
November 11, 2016
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
November 11, 2016
October 12, 2016
Republican Politicians Have Only Their Fears to Blame … In calls this morning, many Rs privately want to defect from Trump. But they say the debate gave them pause since he roused their base. … Remember, there were already an unusual number of high-profile Republicans who had broken with their own nominee, with many saying they would support Hillary Clinton and others just refusing to vote for Trump. Why did it take so long for the rejection to build? -Bloomberg
Bloomberg thinks rejecting Trump is an obvious choice for Republicans but this article doesn’t recognize the larger trend is to reject modern Republicanism itself.
This really started with the GOP’s removal of conservative libertarian candidate Ron Paul from political contention by intimidating his supporters and unilaterally changing and suspending rules. This sort of approach to non GOP-approved candidates has continued with Trump.
Ron Paul, who wanted to educate more than he wanted to win, was nonetheless squashed by a variety of evil and panicked GOP attacks. Donald Trump recast many of Ron Paul’s views but basically moved down Ron Paul’s political track and due to his celebrity and wealth succeeded where Ron Paul had failed.
Ron Paul was anti-tax, anti-central bank and anti-war. So is Trump, though Trump is closer to the elite mainstream than Paul. But the GOP leadership is pro-tax (though it pretends not to be) … also pro-central bank and pro-war.
The GOP leadership and the Democratic leadership are aligned on most points. It’s the details that are different. But the bulk of GOP supporters take GOP rhetoric at face value. They are specifically, legitimately libertarian in many ways.
The difference lies in the support of the military, but even here, GOP support at the base is far more nuanced than GOP leadership. Support for American wars involves perceptions of necessity. In other words, there is not unlimited support.
Both Ron Paul and now Trump hold views that are in many ways closer to the views of the GOP base. This is why Ron Paul was so successful when he ran a second time after people came to understand his views. This is why Trump has been successful.
This is what responsible Republican leaders (or just self-interested ones) needed to do early this year: Get over their exaggerated fear of their voters and get behind a tolerable candidate such as Marco Rubio or John Kasich (or, earlier, Jeb Bush or Scott Walker or even Bobby Jindal or Rick Perry or whomever).
Or they could have bit the bullet in late spring, when they still had the option of Ted Cruz and Kasich. Or they could have denied Trump the nomination, even after the primaries were over. They had enough votes collectively to do that. Trump was far short of the majority he needed without additional support from the Republican National Committee.
This excerpt above represents a complete misunderstanding about what’s going on. Voters have simply decided that mainstream politics is ineffective and destructive.
This is why Bernie Sanders did so well as an “outsider” along with Paul and Trump. It is a trend that’s not going away. It’s getting stronger, if anything.
Now just because we recognize a trend doesn’t mean either party is going to fall in line with popular sentiment. The rhetoric may shift a little but taxes, regulations and government intrusions into daily life will continue and expand. This is in true not just for the US but for the West generally.
But the Internet itself has verbalized what’s actually wrong with leadership positions and this process will continue even if the Internet itself is censored.
May 25, 2016
No One Hates the IRS More Than House Republicans … Pity John Koskinen, who agreed to take one of the worst jobs in America and is now being punished for it. In 2013, President Barack Obama asked Koskinen to take over at the Internal Revenue Service amid budgetary chaos, deteriorating morale and a simmering scandal. House Republicans are now trying to impeach him. – Bloomberg
We don’t pity John Koskinen. We watched a good deal of the IRS hearings as they unfolded and it was fairly obvious a cover-up was taking place.
The people involved either weren’t telling the truth or were subject to convenient memory lapses.
It was obvious that higher-up officials at the IRS, presumably at the behest of the Obama administration, has schemed to delay the non profit status of Tea Party groups opposed to Obama.
It was obvious as well that no matter how much evidence was collected by the committee under Republican leadership, the Democratic Department of Justice would not bring an indictment.
And it did not.
IRS officials destroyed emails by “accident” while blaming the actions of the IRS on out-of-control low level individuals.
The woman at the center of the scandal, Lois Lerner, resigned and took the fifth. The Committee talked about indicting her as a first step to putting her in prison, but nothing has happened.
The cover-up went all the way to the top. Koskinen himself, while giving the appearance of being cooperative, always seemed a step behind the investigation.
There were many things he didn’t know about. And after a while it became obvious that he didn’t want to know.
Koskinen’s job, as an Obama appointee, was to clean up and move on.
Blame was duly apportioned … The agency’s boss resigned, a top deputy retired, and the director of the offending unit was placed on leave and declared in contempt of Congress. Half a dozen congressional committees vowed to fumigate every pixel of offending detail. One managed to produce an 8,000-page report.
It certainly sounds like there were repercussions, but not really. Someone retired. Ms. Lerner was questioned by Congress. A voluminous report was produced and ignored.
Delaying non profit status of anti-Obama groups was only the latest IRS sin.
A previous scandal saw the IRS apologizing for what reports called “a lavish 2010 conference in California that included an elaborate Star Trek spoof training video.”
The entire conference cost upwards of $3 million and the IRS later warned expenses could exceed $5 million.
The agency didn’t know exactly how much because no one was keeping track of costs.
And that’s the real problem: government doesn’t operate like a normal business.
March 29, 2016
While it might sound strange, a coronation of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary will mark the end of the party as we know it. There’s been a lot written about the “Sanders surge,” with much of it revolving around Hillary Clinton’s extreme personal weakness as a candidate. While this is indisputable, it’s also a convenient way for the status quo to exempt itself from fault and discount genuine grassroots anger. I’m of the view that Sanders’ support is more about people liking him than them disliking Hillary, particularly when it comes to registered Democrats. He’s not merely seen as the “least bad choice.” People really do like him.
The Sanders appeal is twofold. He is seen as unusually honest and consistent for someone who’s held elected office for much of his life, plus he advocates a refreshingly anti-establishment view on core issues that matter to an increasing number of Americans. These include militarism, Wall Street bailouts, a two-tiered justice system, the prohibitive cost of college education, healthcare insecurity and a “rigged economy.” While Hillary is being forced to pay lip service to these issues, everybody knows she doesn’t mean a word of it. She means it less than Obama meant it in 2008, and Obama really didn’t mean it.
– From the post: It’s Not Just the GOP – The Democratic Party is Also Imploding
I just finished watching a surprisingly good and honest 14 minute segment on MSNBC’s Morning Joe which covered how the Democratic National Committee has been rigging the primary in favor of Hillary Clinton. Host Joe Scarborough even went so far as to admit the media’s complicity in the process with regard to superdelegates. He notes:
“And I know the Republican party wishes they rigged the process as well as the Democratic party did right now, because they could rig it against Trump — but the Democratic party rigs their process so that these superdelegates, which by the way can move any direction they want, actually skew the process and the reporting so badly that the voters actually don’t have their say when it comes to voting.”
This is a key issue that has been driving me up a wall lately. It is journalistic malpractice for media outlets to include superdelegates in the total tally when these Democratic operatives can switch their support at any point between now and the convention. As we learned in the post Did Hillary Clinton Really Win More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders Despite a Landslide Loss?
March 2, 2016
“There was the famous 2010 experiment, in which a team from Ann Arbor, Michigan, offered to hack the District of Columbia’s voting system. They broke in and reversed the count in the mayoral election. They also fabricated absentee votes from overseas and canceled out the real votes.” — Jon Rappoport
For the Republicans, 12 states and 661 delegates are up for grabs in the Primaries today. Trump is favored to rack up major wins.
If he doesn’t, and if instead Rubio (the GOP Party bosses’ choice) suddenly emerges, look for vote fraud.
As Paul Watson (Infowars) reported this morning, people in Travis County, Texas, have called KLBJ radio to report their votes for Trump were changed on the touch screens: Rubio’s name came up. That would indicate an intentional programming alteration.
There are obviously several ways to achieve vote fraud: reprogramming machines; reprogramming the transfer process, during which vote-counts from multiple machines are combined and added up; reprogramming an even later stage, during which combined vote-totals are merged at a higher level and reported to a wire service (e.g., AP) and/or the vote registrar in the state where voting is taking place.
Dovetailing with this level of fraud, we have the early premature calls of victory issued by television networks, who usually obtain their information from wire services. These quick calls can act as a cover and a diversion, to dampen the possibility that anyone will challenge the result of the election.
To break this down further, here is my article, from November, 2012, on the California Prop 37 scandal. Prop 37 attempted (and failed) to win voter approval for mandating GMO labels on food:
“Did Prop 37 Really Lose Or Was It Vote Fraud?”
Hold your horses.
On election night, not long after the polls closed in California, the announcement came: Prop 37 was losing. A little while later, it was all over. 37 had gone down to defeat.
But is that the whole story? No.
As of 2:30PM today, Thursday, November 8th, two days after the election, many votes in California remain uncounted.
I tried to find out how many.
It turns out that the Secretary of State of CA, responsible for elections in the state, doesn’t know.
I was told all counties in California have been asked, not ordered, to report in with those figures. It’s voluntary.
So I picked out a few of the biggest counties and called their voter registrar offices. Here are the boggling results:
Santa Clara County: 180,000 votes remain uncounted.
Orange County: 241,336 votes remain uncounted.
San Diego County: 475,000 votes remain uncounted.
LA County: 782,658 votes remain uncounted.
In just those four counties, 1.6 million votes remain uncounted.
The California Secretary of State’s website indicates that Prop 37 is behind by 559,776 votes.
So in the four counties I looked into, there are roughly three times as many uncounted votes as the margin of Prop 37’s defeat.
And as I say, I checked the numbers in only four counties. There are 54 other counties in the state. Who knows how many votes they still need to process?
[Bold Emphasis Added Throughout]
Given their track record, any politician, or anyone wanting power for that matter, should be looked at in an askance manner. With that said, the fact that Trump is causing the powers that shouldn’t be so much pain in the behind, should not be taken lightly. The issues he mentions, and how he mentions them are spawning countless wildfires.
Furthermore, the fact that the mainstream media propaganda machine is going after him, just goes to show those at the top fear him, and that, should be focused on incisively.
February 22, 2016
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
Trump. He’s for real. No he isn’t. He means what he says. No he doesn’t. He’s a joke. He’s serious. He’s a liberator. No, he’s the next Mussolini. He’s sane and lucid. He’s off his rocker. He cares about people. He’s a racist. He’ll take American back where it belongs. He’ll drive it over a cliff.
Whatever you think about the man, his campaign has just acquired a new level of reality, after his victory in South Carolina. And the people who were looking to destroy him have greater reason to pursue their goal.
I’m not just talking about the Republican Party bosses. I’m talking about the Rockefeller Globalists, who are watching Trump attack their trade treaties, as he vows to bring jobs back to America. Those treaties are the Globalists’ holy of holies. They’re portals to an emerging world of much deeper poverty and suffering—and as such they’re vital to a new grotesque Globalist planetary order.
Trump now has a straight shot at the Republican nomination. Apparently, nothing he says, short of claiming God and Jesus are fairy tales, will affect his poll numbers.
One line of attack against him would occur at the nominating convention. If the GOP honchos, by hook or by crook, can keep Rubio and Cruz in the race, they might be able to enter the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, in July, with split numbers—no clear winner. After that split vote holds up on the first ballot, all bets are off. The brokers will move in and start making deals behind the scenes. Delegates can switch their positions.
The main target would be Cruz. Promise him the moon; get him to release his delegates and declare he favors Rubio, who is the GOP’s man. Rubio is who the Party bosses want.
But if Cruz stands firm, and if two or three more ballots fail to produce a winner, then the GOP would do a switch and tell Rubio that, for the sake of the Party, he has to fall on his sword and instruct his delegates to line up for Cruz. In other words, the GOP will do anything to stop Trump, including losing the general election.
A scene like this at the Republican Convention would enter a new kind of hell. Trump supporters, seeing the theft of the nomination in real time, ballot by ballot, would blow the roof off the Arena.
If Trump enters the Convention with the nomination locked up, or if he emerges the winner after a few ballots, the GOP will face a dilemma. Should they back him to the hilt or back away, undermine him, and let Hillary demolish him in November?
On his part, if Trump sees his own Party betraying him, he can go directly to the American people and tell them what’s happening—and how this is clear evidence that the Republican GOP needs a complete overhaul—a feat he promises to accomplish. Then, even if he loses the election, he’ll become the de facto leader of his Party, and the bosses will feel his wrath. This is what the GOP honchos fear most. They can handle losing the election, but being thrown off the ramparts of their little fiefdoms and crashing on the rocks below, rattlesnake blood oozing from broken veins…that would be the ultimate devastation.
December 16, 2015
If a human mind were composed of a dozen eggs, and you soft-boiled them, broke them open, and let the goo run all over the plate, down on to the table, soon dripping on to the floor, that would be mind control, in the sense that you’re creating meaningless chaos, where no thought is important or makes sense or adds up to a cogent point.
That was the CNN-hosted Republic Presidential debate, with what was it, nine candidates sounding off, interrupting one another, and mentioning Trump so often it seemed like they were afflicted with a one-note samba syndrome.
You could conclude CNN, a Democratic stronghold, wanted the chaos, to throw the Republicans into an exceedingly bad and foul light, but other recent Presidential debates, hosted by other networks, have come across in the same basic fashion.
The problem starts with networks hosting these lunatic events. Since when does a debate need a moderator who controls and asks all the questions? Since when does a network need to have any role at all?
A debate is supposed to be two people contending over an important issue.
For contrast, consider the 1858 Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas face-off—when apparently citizens still had a semblance of intelligence. Both men were running for a US Senate seat in Illinois. In those days, state legislatures chose US Senators.
But the issue in the debates was slavery, so the interest was intense and it was national. Here was the agreed-upon format: seven debates in seven Illinois towns over the course of three weeks; in each debate, the opening candidate would speak for 60 minutes, his opponent would speak for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate would return for 30 minutes.
The debates drew large crowds. Chicago newspapers had stenographers in each town. The stenos took down every word, and newspapers across the nation printed, in full, the texts.
Those were debates. No one with sprayed hair was in control. The men talked. And talked.
If you could transport the CNN Republican debate back in time to one of those Illinois towns, the audience would conclude, in short order, that all the participants were insane, possibly suffering from brain damage.
“These people are running for…what did you say? President??!!?? You’re joking. This a joke, yes?”
What do you think the 1858 audience would conclude about the state of the country in 2015? A country that actually acquiesced in a “debate” of this sort?
What do you think the 1858 audience would conclude about the two political parties, in 2015, who permitted such debates, and about the general electorate who expressed partisan support for either party?