Thursday, September 29, 2016

United Nations Takes Over the Internet on 01 October 2016!


Action Required: Stop the Internet Takeover Now!  
Internet no longer under U.S. Control by Saturday
It’s a fairytale that ends with the reality of Barack Obama destroying it
By Judi McLeod —— Bio and Archives
September 29, 2016
Worse case scenario: When you awaken to face another new day in tumultuous times this Saturday, the Information Highway as we knew it will no longer be at your service.
With computers being all but useless without being hooked up to the Internet, set back by decades, your fingers will someday soon move over the keys of an expensive desk top computer, now essentially turned into a modern day typewriter.
On his way out of the door Barack Obama will have wholly ceded over control of the Internet to UNIDO, (United Nations Industrial Development Organization).
When it is far too late for anyone to do anything about it, history will someday record that Barack Hussein Obama hijacked public access to the Internet before leaving office.
Why he decided to hand over control of the Internet, to an unknown conglomerate of “international stakeholders—held by the United States for all 18 years of ICANN existence—five weeks before Election 2016, remains a dark-sided riddle.
Obama, Hillary Clinton, the global elite and big governments at home and abroad will be able to surf the ‘Net as usual and will be able to retain their IPs, but the masses will be left on the outside looking in.
Ditto for Internet giants like Amazon and Google and others who were getting ahead of the curve four years before the hand-off.
“Icann — the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which oversees a host of Internet-related operations, including the assignment of domain names — today revealed a list of nearly 2,000 top-level domain names that businesses and other organizations have applied to own, as part of a new move to vastly expand the range of domains that can be used. (TechCrunch, June 13, 2012)
“And while some of the applications are coming from the usual suspects among those who already figure in the domain name registration business or want to — 70 from Top Level Domain Holdings, from example, and 307 from newly-funded Donuts — it’s interesting to note that leading tech companies like Amazon, Google, Apple and Microsoft are taking very divergent strategies about how to approach this new chapter in mapping out the web.
“Here’s a rundown of how these and some others have approached the business of registrations, what they’ve registered for, and what might be behind it.
“It appears that Google has named a separate entity, Charleston Road Registry, to manage its gTLD portfolio, because Google, which is already an ICANN-accredited registrar, wants to keep its registry and registrar activities separate. We have contacted Google to ask why and it would not comment.
“But there is some explanation for the breadth of applications in a blog post by Vint Cerf, Google’s “Chief Internet Evangelist” and himself a founding father of Icann (and a former chairman). He notes that Google has applied covering four different areas: its existing trademarks (like .google); domains for its core business (eg .docs); domains for user experience (.youtube); and domains with “creative potential” (eg .lol).
“For Amazon, another company that has applied for dozens of TLDs, it looks like it may have followed a similar strategy to cover trademarks, core business, user experience and “creative potential.” We have contacted Amazon with the question and will update when we hear back.
“Sticking to brands only is definitely the approach taken so far by Microsoft, Samsung, Sony and Apple — which has been particularly conservative, registering only for “.apple”. Other brands like Facebook and Twitter do not appear to have gotten involved at all in this process.
“Some of the registrations, especially those on brand names, may well be made on a defensive basis, to make sure that competitors or others do not park on related TLDs. And — in a process somewhat similar to how some companies buy patents — they may be looking to own certain domains purely as a defensive measure to make sure that others do not get them.
“But on the other hand, the possibilities of what some of these domains might point to are interesting to contemplate. Examples: Is Amazon really looking to develop its own mobile phone? Look, it’s registered mobile, calls and talk. Is Google looking to move into more focused content plays around a specific vertical like the family? Look, it’s registered baby, kid, mom, dad and family.
“Leaving to one side that there are some here that are overlapping (along with many others in the list of nearly 2,000 name applications), there is also something interesting that both Google and Amazon could be trying to do here in their wide-ranging list of names.
“Given that both have already made extensive investments into becoming all-in-one platforms, offering content, cloud services, data management, devices, ecommerce and more, it seems like they are one step away from running their own one-stop shop internet platforms for others that want to go online. They could sell URLs based around those new TDSs and then offer a full suite of services to serve them: hosting, data management, billing, ecommerce, content streaming, voice calls, mobile and more.
“Two more things to remember about the TLDs:
The first is that there are already some 22 TLDs in use today, but some of them get very little traffic indeed. As Cerf points out, nearly 50 percent of all traffic goes over .com. And as my colleague Sarah says, “All these new TLDs could still flop, too.”
“So some of this may be speculative bubble buying — with bubble prices to match: altogether some $350 million has been sunk into these applications so far, Icann noted in the press conference today.
“The nearly $200,000 pricetag for each registration — although Icann says it can justify the cost, and even help those who feel they should own a domain but cannot afford the application fee — has also caused some controversy for furthering the digital divide. Abe Garver, a principal at Focus Banking, notes: “That there will be negative long-term implications for those (small to middle-sized) retailers that lacked capital to be in the game, is a foregone conclusion.  I predict the new domains will radically change organic search results and further swing the advantage from the haves, to the have nots..not just in the U.S. but around the world.
“In my opinion this watershed event is akin to our Federal Government selling land in our nation’s park system.  The land has never (in my lifetime) been on the market and its future value may be astronomical.  Sure an Internet retailers could expand into a new market with a prime url, however the asset is fungible, meaning it can be sold at a later time for (hopefully) a gain,” he told me in an email exchange.
“The second is that it ain’t over yet. These now need to go through a vetting a decision awarding process that will likely see lots of horse trading and more. And this is just the first round of registrations: there will be more rounds to come.
Countries like China, Iran and Russia carry big sticks at the United Nations and they will be the biggest beneficiaries in the newly mapped out Internet.
In China, thousands of citizens, including farmers and university students, have been imprisoned for posting to the Internet.
As Roger Aronoff explained: “According to the Epoch Times, the New York-based newspaper owned and run by Chinese-Americans opposed to the Communist regime in China, “Already, the Chinese regime is moving to fill the void left by the U.S. handover—and its new system for governing the internet goes far beyond the responsibilities held by ICANN.” They state that “Over the last two years, Chinese leaders have drafted an authoritarian set of laws that governs every facet of the internet.” 
So while you may suffer the ‘Big F’ (Frustration) on trying to navigate your way through on how to retain access to the Internet on Saturday, this is what they’ll be doing in China:
October 1st is the National Day of the People’s Republic of China.
“National Day is a public holiday in the People’s Republic of China to celebrate their national day, and is celebrated annually on October 1. (Wikipedia)
“The PRC was founded on October 1, 1949, with a ceremony at Tiananmen Square. One thing should be noted is that the PRC was not founded on that day, but on September 21, 1949. The Central People’s Government passed the Resolution on the National Day of the People’s Republic of China on December 2, 1949, and declared that October 1 is the National Day.
“The National Day is celebrated throughout mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau with a variety of government-organized festivities, including fireworks and concerts. Public places, such as Tiananmen Square in Beijing, are decorated in a festive theme.
“Portraits of revered leaders, such as Mao Zedong, are publicly displayed.”
In the spun sugar fairytale, promoted by the lie-happy Lib-left, Al Gore invented the Internet.
It’s a fairytale that ends with the reality of Barack Obama destroying it.
US ready to 'hand over' the internet's naming system
Dave Lee, North America technology reporter
18 August 2016
The US is giving up a considerable power over the way the internet functions
The US has confirmed it is finally ready to cede power of the internet’s naming system, ending the almost 20-year process to hand over a crucial part of the internet's governance.
The Domain Naming System, DNS, is one of the internet’s most important components.
It pairs the easy-to-remember web addresses - like - with their relevant servers. Without DNS, you’d only be able to access websites by typing in its IP address, a series of numbers such as "".
More by circumstance than intention, the US has always had ultimate say over how the DNS is controlled - but not for much longer.
It will give up its power fully to Icann - the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - a non-profit organisation.
The terms of the change were agreed upon in 2014, but it wasn’t until now that the US said it was finally satisfied that Icann was ready to make the change.
Icann will get the “keys to the kingdom”, as one expert put it, on 1 October 2016. From that date, the US will lose its dominant voice - although Icann will remain in Los Angeles.
If anyone can, Icann?
Users of the web will not notice any difference - that’s because Icann has essentially been doing the job for years anyway.
But it’s a move that has been fiercely criticised by some US politicians as opening the door to the likes of China and Russia to meddle with a system that has always been “protected” by the US.
"The proposal will significantly increase the power of foreign governments over the Internet,” warned a letter signed by several Republican senators, including former Presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz.
Whether you think those fears are justified depends on your confidence in the ability of Icann to do its job.
With DNS web users are able to use easy-to-remember addresses
It was created in 1998 to take over the task of assigning web addresses. Until that point, that job was handled by one man - Jon Postel. He was known to many as the “god of the internet”, a nod to his power over the internet, as well as his research work in creating some of the systems that underpin networking.
Mr Postel, who died not long after Icann was created, was in charge of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Administration of the IANA was contracted to the newly-formed Icann, but the US's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the Department of Commerce, kept its final say over what it was able to do.
It’s that final detail that is set to change from October. No longer will the US government - through the NTIA - be able to intervene on matters around internet naming.
It rarely intervened. Most famously, it stepped in when Icann wanted to launch a new top-level domain for pornography, “.xxx”. The government wanted Icann to ditch the idea, but it eventually went ahead anyway.
From October, the “new” Icann will become an organisation that answers to multiple stakeholders who want a say over the internet. Those stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technical expertise.
Best option
“It's a big change,” remarked Prof Alan Woodward from the University of Surrey.
"It marks a transition from an internet effectively governed by one nation to a multi-stakeholder governed internet: a properly global solution for what has become a global asset."
Technically, the US is doing this voluntarily - if it wanted to keep power of DNS, it could. But the country has long acknowledged that relinquishing its control was a vital act of international diplomacy.
Other countries, particularly China and Russia, had put pressure on the UN to call for the DNS to be controlled by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union.
Russia had been among the countries calling for the internet to be controlled by the UN
A treaty to do just that was on the table in 2012 - but the US, along with the UK, Canada and Australia, refused, citing concerns over human rights abuses that may arise if other countries had greater say and control over the internet and its technical foundations.
Instead, the US has used its remaining power over DNS to shift control to Icann, not the UN.
In response to worries about abuse of the internet by foreign governments, the NTIA said it had consulted corporate governance experts who said its the prospect of government interference was “extremely remote”.
"The community’s new powers to challenge board decisions and enforce decisions in court protect against any one party or group of interests from inappropriately influencing Icann,” it said in a Q&A section on its website.
As for how it will change what happens on the internet, the effects will most likely be minimal for the average user.
"This has nothing to do with laws on the internet,” Prof Woodward said.
"Those still are the national laws that apply where it touches those countries.
"This is more about who officially controls the foundations of the Internet/web addresses and domain names, without which the network wouldn't function."
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh,, Drudge Report,, and Glenn Beck.

First Debate Between Trump and Clinton!


FULL Presidential Debate - Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton  
Published on Sep 26, 2016
Presidential Debate 2016 Highlights | Clinton Trump Go Toe-To-Toe on Cybersecurity and Hacks          
Published on Sep 26, 2016
Bill O'Reilly Grades First Presidential Debate
Posted By Tim Hains
On Date September 28, 2016

'No Spin' analysis of the presidential debate
Published on Sep 27, 2016
BILL O'REILLY: Many folks only hear what they want to hear and that's why most of the post-debate comments last night were a colossal waste of time. Many opinions on the debate are subject to rooting interest and to expunge that you actually have to step back and think.
Talking Points has done that and here is my assessment. Neither candidate broke out last night, the American people did not learn very much because both candidates stuck to what they have said in the past. There were few challenging questions put forth, only general queries except for the birther and tax return stuff designed to hammer Mr. Trump. Let's begin with demeanor, very important to Donald Trump. At the start he was credible, speaking about the need to stimulate the private sector so jobs are created. But as the debate wore on, Mr. Trump began to get a bit testy.
For her part, Secretary Clinton stuck to the progressive script and seemed somewhat smug while not speaking. One of the most interesting parts of the debate was the racial aspect framed around stop-and-frisk. The truth is that aggressive police monitoring in high-crime neighborhoods does cut violent crime, especially where guns are used. But stop-and-frisk also does alienate some law-abiding folks who are subject to intrusion. There is no question that permissive local governments run by Democrats have failed dismally in places like Chicago and Baltimore. Mr. Trump missed an opportunity to ask Mrs. Clinton to repudiate those administrations. He also missed chances to pin the secretary down on sanctuary cities, violent protests, disrespect for the anthem and vouchers to improve poor public school performance. Hillary Clinton used three effective grenades: his tax returns, the birther issue and support for the Iraq war.
Moderator Lester Holt helped Mrs. Clinton on the birther deal, and Trump made the mistake of over-explaining. He should have simply shrugged off questions designed to trap him, refocusing on Secretary Clinton's many ethical problems. If Donald Trump really wants to be president, he must put frivolities aside and concentrate on three realities: First, the federal government is hurting the poor and working class by punishing the private sector with crazy regulations and high taxation. Second, that Hillary Clinton's acceptance of Barack Obama's ISIS policy allows those savages to continue their terrorism at will. And third, the Democratic Party's embrace of grievance is pitting Americans against one another, demonizing the police and creating an environment where the USA is portrayed as oppressive not the land of opportunity it really is.
If Trump would hammer home those three themes he might distinguish himself in a way that would attract voters currently skeptical of him. Finally, Bret Baier had a wise comment today. He said that if the polls continue to build for Trump after the debate, the Clinton campaign will be in serious trouble. Many online surveys are boosting Trump's debate performance, but both candidates can do much better. And to win the White House they will have to.
My Analysis of First Presidential Debate
By Chuck Baldwin
September 29, 2016
[NOTE: The opinion in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the opinion of, it's employees, representatives, or other contributing writers.]
I am one of these libertarian/constitutionalists who is still undecided as to who I will vote for for President this November. Obviously, I would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. She is a career criminal politician of the highest order. Putting another Clinton in the White House just might put the final nail in the coffin of America. She is a disgusting, despicable, deplorable degenerate. Hillary and Bill are no better than Bonnie and Clyde. Let me take that back. They are FAR WORSE than Bonnie and Clyde.
Hillary is a Neocon’s Neocon; she is a globalist’s globalist; she is rabidly anti-Second Amendment; she is a radical pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-transgender, pro-war, corporatist crony. Hillary represents ALL OF THE WORST in Washington, D.C.
That being said, it is my personal conviction to never vote for the “lesser of two evils” if both candidates are guilty of violating the core principles that I have determined to never compromise.
I haven’t voted for a major party presidential candidate in the general election since Ronald Reagan. I did cast enthusiastic votes in the GOP primaries for Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. Normally, the GOP nominates big-government Neocons like Bush I, Bush II, McCain, and Romney--and I refuse to vote for such candidates. Absent a principled Republican presidential candidate to vote for in the general election, I usually vote for the Constitution Party candidate. This year’s CP candidate is Darrell Castle: a very good man and a committed constitutionalist--a man I could easily vote for.
The confusion this year is that the GOP presidential candidate, Donald Trump, does not have a legislative track record. His personal rhetoric and contributions in the political arena are all over the board. One could just as easily put him in either the Democrat or the Republican camp (not that there is normally that much difference between the two major parties in Washington, D.C., anyway). At times, he has talked and acted like a liberal, while at other times he has talked and acted like a conservative. However, without a definitive voting record, the REAL Donald Trump is extremely difficult to nail down.
Trump is campaigning as a nationalist/populist conservative. He claims to be pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-less taxes, pro-less government regulation, anti-illegal immigration, anti-globalism, anti-establishment, pro-law and order, and pro-freedom. If that was all there was to it, I could easily support him. But that is NOT all there is to it.
There have always been several things about Donald Trump that I’ve been uneasy with. I have said that repeatedly, as faithful readers of this column know. I’ve said I think Trump might be a really good President or a really bad President. And, quite frankly, it appears to me as if it could just as easily be one as the other.
Therefore, I watched the first presidential debate this week between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton with much interest. Truthfully, I was looking for Donald Trump to assuage my reservations about him. He didn’t. He only exacerbated them.
Let me begin with an objective and critical analysis of the debate: on the whole, I thought Donald Trump did poorly. He seemed ill-prepared and was not very good at thinking on his feet, albeit he did amazingly better in the polls afterward than I expected he would. This is a VERY BAD omen for Hillary Clinton. Trump’s performance was less than spectacular, yet the American people (a record 84 million watched the debate) gave him the post-debate nod. Hopefully, all of the scandals and criminality of the Clintons are finally starting to catch up with them in this election. Because of Hillary’s poor poll results following what was probably her best on-camera performance ever, it might even be safe to predict a Trump landslide victory in November. But I digress.
As Trump and Clinton went into the debate, Trump had all of the momentum. If he had had a strong performance Monday evening, he might have been able to seal a victory in November that night. Democrats were holding their collective breath hoping and praying that Hillary would not fall down during the 90-minute debate. Two-thirds of the American people now believe that Hillary is not physically capable of being President (another bad omen for her). That she stayed on her feet made it seem like a good night for her (and indeed it was). Trump entered the ring against a very weak and very unpopular opponent. But his mediocre showing allows Hillary’s candidacy to remain competitive. It could have been a knockout night for Trump; instead, he left his opponent standing to fight another day.
Donald scored well when he talked about Hillary’s email scandal, but he didn’t drive it home. He let her slip out of it. He scored well when he talked about NATO countries not paying up for their own defense. He scored well when he said America is not the policeman of the world. He scored well when he said we should have never invaded Iraq. He scored well when he talked about stopping the hemorrhage of America’s manufacturing jobs going overseas. He scored well when he forced Hillary to defend NAFTA. He scored well when he talked about reducing taxes and government regulation. He almost scored well when he tried to talk about Hillary and the career politicians in D.C. helping to create ISIS, but, again, he didn’t know how to drive it home. That had to be due to either a lack of preparation or a lack of understanding about the nuts and bolts of it all.
With the help of her debate assistant, moderator NBC news anchor Lester Holt, Hillary had Donald on the ropes much of the debate talking about his lack of paying taxes and his several bankruptcies. Trump’s lack of debating experience showed up when he fell into the trap of letting them put him on the defensive with those accusations.
Hillary Clinton is the quintessential corrupt politician. The way she sold access to foreign donors (especially the Chinese) via her crooked Clinton Foundation when she was Secretary of State and when Bill was President is infamous. Trump could have easily turned the tables on her by shifting the spotlight to the obvious financial improprieties of her criminal foundation, but he didn’t even bring it up.
The financial corruption of the Clinton Foundation makes Trump’s legal wrangling that allowed him to pay no taxes and business bankruptcies look like child’s play in comparison. But Trump let himself stay on the ropes by trying to defend himself instead of attacking the political bribes associated with the Clinton Foundation. That alone might have been a knockout punch for Trump. But he never threw it. That could be because he is reported to have donated to the Clinton Foundation in the past. If so, that sadly left him vulnerable on what would otherwise be a winning issue for him.
Trump also missed a huge opportunity to drive home Hillary’s corruption when the subject of cyber security came up. Clinton’s email scandal is the perfect example of how she willingly compromised our national cyber security as our Secretary of State.
Then there is Benghazi. Trump never broached it. Maybe he is waiting for later debates. But this is an issue he simply cannot ignore in prime time debates. He can bet that the pro-Clinton media moderators will never broach the subject, so he will have to.
But I thought the worst mistake of the night was Trump’s failure to highlight Hillary’s radical anti-Second Amendment agenda. He had a wide-open door, a golden opportunity to drive home the point that he was truly the only pro-Second Amendment candidate on the stage, and he blew it. BIG TIME.
The only thing Trump did to separate himself from Clinton’s radical gun-control agenda was to tout his endorsement by the NRA. How lame!
Not only did Trump NOT drive home his support for the Second Amendment, he spent quite a bit of time AGREEING with Clinton about “getting guns away from criminals.” At this point, Donald Trump sounded downright scary.
Trump went on and on talking about all of the shootings in Chicago. But he said NOTHING about the fact that Chicago is one of the most gun-controlled cities in the country. He could have used the shootings in Chicago as an example of how gun-control laws do not work and how gun-control laws make life more dangerous for law-abiding people. He had a golden opportunity to drive home the fact that gun-control laws do NOT keep criminals from having guns, that they will ALWAYS have guns (because they don’t care about obeying the law), and that it is the law-abiding folks who are at risk because they are disarmed and, hence, unable to defend themselves. But, again, he said nothing of the sort.
That’s when Trump got scary.
Instead of promoting lawful self-defense, Donald starting promoting Police-State-style “stop and frisk” laws. This was exactly what I DIDN’T want to hear from Donald Trump. It was very obvious at this point that Trump is quite ignorant of the Constitution. When he started talking about “stop and frisk,” he made Hillary look GOOD when she retorted that such laws are unconstitutional. THEY ARE INDEED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Geez! Did we have to have Hillary Clinton tell us that? UGH!
Police have NO authority to stop and frisk people without cause. America is not a Police State (at least not completely). This is one of my nagging questions about Trump: Does he even realize the constitutional constraints on government--including the executive branch of government? Should his “stop and frisk” policies become law, America will have pretty much officially crossed the Rubicon into a Police State. I have to tell you, this one scares me silly, because it portends MUCH MORE in the way of police abuse--and we already have WAY TOO MUCH of that.
And I don’t know if Trump was trying to draw in the Ted Cruz supporters (Ted having just recently endorsed Donald) or what, but he seemed to go out of his way to talk about his friendship with Israel’s Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That didn’t set well with me either.
Zionist Israel is NOT America’s friend and is certainly no friend to world peace. For all intents and purposes, the Zionist agenda in Tel Aviv and the Neocon agenda in Washington D.C., and New York City are one and the same: war and the financial profits that come from war.
One of the attractions to Trump’s campaign is his “outsider” status. The people of America are mostly fed up with the status quo in Washington. They are tired of endless wars of aggression; they are tired of war for profit; they are tired of American globalism; they are tired of our State Department and CIA meddling in the private affairs of foreign nations; and they are tired of America’s coercive, bullying foreign policies--including nation building and forced regime changes.
Donald Trump is 2016’s anti-establishment, anti-Neocon, anti-globalist candidate. But by identifying himself with the Zionist Netanyahu, Trump lumped himself in with the whole Neocon, Warfare State machine. I guess the question is: Does he realize it, or is he truly ignorant of who these people really are and merely trying to entice the Ted Cruz Israel-First Christians into voting for him? That’s another unanswered, nagging question I have about Trump. And all he did Monday night was, again, exacerbate my reservations.
And though it didn’t come up in this first debate, I am truly not certain where Donald Trump comes down on the whole wars of aggression issue. When he talks about it being wrong to have invaded Iraq, he sounds really good. But he has also talked before about nuking nations in the Middle East. Then he turns around and says in this first debate that nuclear weapons are the biggest problem in the world. So, again, which Donald Trump would occupy the White House if he were elected? More nagging questions.
The good news for Trump is, again, post-debate polls indicate that despite a mediocre performance, he still seemed to come out ahead of Hillary in the minds of the general public. However, I’m sure there are many libertarian/constitutionalists like me who came away with more questions than answers about Trump. And just to go on record, I will follow Ron Paul’s example and NOT endorse Gary Johnson, who is more liberal than he is libertarian--and his running mate even more so.
The other good news for Trump is that there are yet two more debates in which he will have an opportunity to try and assuage my reservations about him. Like the Zen master said, “We’ll see.”
[If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.]
[I also have many books and DVDs available for purchase online. Go to Chuck Baldwin Live Store]
© 2016 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 9 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck's complete bio here.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Zionist Jew Reveals the Conspiracy!


Zionist Jew converts to Catholicism and exposes Jewish Conspiracy
Published on Aug 7, 2013

Monday, September 26, 2016

Did Paul McCartney Die in 1966?


Paul McCartney is dead? - Gene analysis & 4 children outside wedlock  

Published on Sep 6, 2016

With 1 more illegitimate son in public July 2016, we have 4 possible McCartney children. And a gene analysis based on hair and eye color of the legit McCartney. Narrated by Ken Peters, Scripts by Sherry Wang.

Paul McCartney’s Death in 1966 Goes Much Deeper Than an MI5 Replacement Operation

Published on Jun 26, 2016

Read the full article here:

2015 New evidence that Paul McCartney died in 1966 in a car wreck and was replaced by Bill Shepherd  
Published on Dec 13, 2015
Paul is dead. 2015 story from clues. Beatles. PID Day in the life, strawberry fields, Long and winding road, carry that weight, let it be. Billy and the pepperpots. nothing is real. Marty Biggs: vocals, all instruments, video, story, and produced. Trai Biggs: vocals and video production.

Paul is DEAD  

Uploaded on Jul 17, 2009

Paul Mcartney on David Letterman show chatting about the paul is dead rumour and his relationship with Michael Jackson.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Is Justin Trudeau a Victim of MK Ultra Mind Control?


Justin Trudeau exposed part 1 (mind control)         
Published on Sep 13, 2016
This video is for anybody searching out for the Truth. They are many deceiving Truthers out there who are leading people on the broad road. Policy from the ruling elite ''the best way to control the opposition is to lead it'' and many control opposition are out there. About 5 years ago, I saw the evil satanism in our society and since then I have made much research into the subject. Not long after, I also became a follower of the Lord Jesus-Christ. That is how He drew me to Him and this is the reason for this series of videos exposing Justin Trudeau because many more like me (Truthers) will come to believe in Christ our Savior. God bless!
Sorry if the music stops along the video. YouTube took one song out because the song was forbidden in certain countries. (copyrights) That way these videos can be viewed worldwide. Please share! Thank You!
Exposed in this video:
Mind control Mkultra political puppets exposed (The Trudeau's, Clinton, Obama, Trump, ect), Satanic Canadian flag exposed, evil satanic star exposed, prime minister Lester B.Pearson exposed, United Nations exposed luciferian, Justin Trudeau MKULTRA mind control victim, Pierre Eliott Trudeau exposed pedophile, Brian Mulroney exposed freemason, Dr Ewen Cameron exposed MKULTRA, The Allen Memorial hospital exposed MKULTRA, Mind control at Mcgill Montreal exposed, DR Joseph Mengele exposed Mkultra, Children of Duplessis Montreal mind control MKULTRA CIA exposed, Dr Ruth exposed MKULTRA, Catholic Church exposed MKULTRA mind control satanic, Residential schools exposed murders queen elizabeth II pedophile, Queen Elizabeth II murders, pedophilia exposed, Bohemian Grove exposed, Freemasonry exposed, Knights of malta exposed, Queen satanic, popes satanic, child trafficking exposed, child sacrifice exposed, Jimmy Savile exposed, Jimmy Saville pedophile murderer, prince charles exposed, satanic, Margareth Thatcher exposed peodophilia, Cathy O'brien mkultra, Clinton MKULTRA pedophile exposed, Obama MKULTRA pedophile exposed, Bush exposed pedophile, New World Order exposed, North American free trade agreement exposed, ''Sign of preservation'' exposed freemason occult politician, false religion exposed, Charles Stanley exposed, Edward Heath exposed pedophile, Jersey House of Horrors, Operation paperclip exposed MKULTRA, Nazi ''angel of death'' Dr Mengele in Montreal and South America after World War II, the Twin Town exposed, Montreal Just for laughs festival exposed, Fleur de lis exposed, flower of life exposed, Israel flag and Quebec's flag occult connection, Third eye exposed on Radio-Canada logo, Pine cone symbolism exposed occult, mystery religion exposed, The Beatles satanic band exposed, Aleister Crowley exposed satanic, Jesus-Christ is the way, the Truth and the Life. God bless!
Justin Trudeau exposed 2 (mind control) LSD, Hippie movement, Laurel Canyon
Published on Sep 13, 2016  
Justin Trudeau exposed 3 (mind control) Celine Dion, Walt Disney and Sex Perversion
Published on Sep 14, 2016
Justin Trudeau exposed 4 (mind control) zombie apocalypse  
Published on Sep 17, 2016
Justin Trudeau exposed 5 (mind control) False Christianity, Alpha course, 100 Huntley Street
Published on Sep 18, 2016
Justin Trudeau exposed 6 (Bestiality and Homosexuality agenda) CS Lewis, Walt Disney  
Published on Sep 25, 2016
Justin Trudeau exposed 7 (drug agenda) Snoop doog, Willie Nelson, Pat Robertson, Third eye  
Published on Sep 26, 2016
Also See:
Canadian Senate, Senators, and Other Related Stuff!?
29 July 2016
 Harper's Gone! Here's Justin!
(Part 1)
09 February 2016
(Part 2)
17 March 2016
(Part 3)
25 May 2016
How Does the Future Look for Canada?
17 December 2015
 Are You a Fan of Justin Trudeau?
18 November 2016
Why is Obama Getting Involved with Canadian Politics?
24 October 2015
Abolish the Senate! We Don't Need It!
30 May 2013
Canada, It's Time to Abolish the Senate!
18 March 2013

Friday, September 23, 2016

Can It Get Worse in Venezuela? (Part 3)


Also See:
Venezuela Erupts in Protest!
08 September 2016
Can It Get Worse in Venezuela?
(Part 1)
06 April 2016
(Part 2)
02 June 2016
Venezuela Is Out of Food! Who's Next?
15 February 2016
Chavez, Venezuela, & Socialism
02 June 2009
Are Suspicious 'Suicides' Really Government Murders?
(Part 2)
25 March 2013
Are there Changes in Store for Venezuela?
08 March 2013

Monday, September 19, 2016

Is Trey Gowdy For Real?


SHOCKING Introduction To Congressman Trey Gowdy!  
Published on Sep 3, 2016

Hillary Clinton Snaps At Trey Gowdy During Hearing And Instantly Regrets It!  
Published on Sep 3, 2016

Trey Gowdy All Of His Best Smack Downs
Published on Aug 30, 2016

Trey Gowdy Will Be President Of The United States After This  
Published on Sep 19, 2016

Sunday, September 18, 2016

The Royal Family Are Fake!


Part 1 Greg Hallett: Striking Queen Elizabeth II with a Black Wand; Interviewed by Jim Fetzer  
Published on Sep 28, 2015

Part 2 Greg Hallett: Striking Queen Elizabeth II with a Black Wand; Interviewed by Jim Fetzer  
Published on Sep 28, 2015

Friday, September 16, 2016

Would the Real George Soros Please Stand Up! (Part 3)

Soros to make a killing with European 'forced migration'
Sam Gerrans
2 Oct, 2016
The philanthropist George Soros recently published a letter in the Wall Street Journal entitled, 'Why I’m Investing 500 million USD in Migrants'. In this article, I will be looking at that letter and separating what it means from what it appears to say.
Soros' letter begins: “The world has been unsettled by a surge in forced migration. Tens of millions of people are on the move, fleeing their home countries in search of a better life abroad. Some are escaping civil war or an oppressive regime; others are forced out by extreme poverty, lured by the possibility of economic advancement for themselves and their families.”
This is quite true. And Soros should know since his think tank is fully on board with that “forced migration”. He has either initiated it or facilitated it and, according to Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary (which is presently holding a referendum on whether to accept migrant quotas as demanded by the EU), as quoted by Bloomberg: “His name is perhaps the strongest example of those who support anything that weakens nation states, they support everything that changes the traditional European lifestyle […] These activists who support immigrants inadvertently become part of this international human-smuggling network.”
Soros-backed activists are at the center of that network.
Soros continues: “Our collective failure to develop and implement effective policies to handle the increased flow has contributed greatly to human misery and political instability—both in countries people are fleeing and in the countries that host them, willingly or not. Migrants are often forced into lives of idle despair, while host countries fail to reap the proven benefit that greater integration could bring.”
I have touched on Soros’ psychological peculiarities elsewhere; his narcissistic traits notwithstanding, I shall assume he is not using the royal “we”. That granted, about whom is he speaking when he talks of “Our collective failure to develop and implement effective policies”? If about governments, we should remember that he is elected to no nation’s government, nor has he ever been.
That does not prevent him, however, from meddling in their internal affairs and supporting insurrections such as so-called Color Revolutions, including in Georgia and Ukraine, and whipping up chaos via BLM in the US.
He also famously attacked the British pound, making himself a billion dollars.
He wishes the reader to assume inclusion by his use of “our”. But we are not included; we are simply being told what is to happen.
He then writes of “the proven benefit that greater integration could bring”. This is almost a rhetorical conundrum; he and his lawyers expect – not without reason – that most people will provide their own color to what the words on the page say. He claims proof but provides none – and that is a major omission given that we are expected to entrust our entire cultural and economic future to his assertions.
Many countries, including Japan, China, UAE, Israel and Singapore, are extremely careful to whom they grant citizenship. If the benefits Soros claims were proven, surely they would be on board, too.
To continue: “Governments must play the leading role in addressing this crisis by creating and sustaining adequate physical and social infrastructure for migrants and refugees. But harnessing the power of the private sector is also critical.
Recognizing this, the Obama administration recently launched a “Call to Action” asking U.S. companies to play a bigger role in meeting the challenges posed by forced migration. Today, private-sector leaders are assembling at the United Nations to make concrete commitments to help solve the problem.”
Soros, naturally, does not blush at telling us what our governments “must” do.
The term "forced migration" is clever mind hook. You may be sure that it was worked on for hours and many alternatives discarded. Its power lies in the fact that it implies both helplessness in the face of an unstoppable external force and inevitability of result – while at the same time disregarding causes.
If anyone still cares, the causes include: attacks by the US and Nato on countries which have done them no harm; Angela Merkel’s open invitation to the third world to move to Europe; material and informational support from Soros-funded organizations.
Soros continues: “In response, I have decided to earmark $500 million for investments that specifically address the needs of migrants, refugees and host communities. I will invest in startups, established companies, social-impact initiatives and businesses founded by migrants and refugees themselves. Although my main concern is to help migrants and refugees arriving in Europe, I will be looking for good investment ideas that will benefit migrants all over the world.”
I will translate: “Now that the inflow of immigrants has been set up, I am going to invest $500 million to make the process unstoppable, endless and self-funding, and make a lot of money for myself at the same time. And since this is dressed in the language of compassion, there is nothing you can say against it.”
Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban © Kacper Pempel EU reduced to weak regional player unable to defend itself – Hungary’s Orban
Back to Soros’ letter: “This commitment of investment equity will complement the philanthropic contributions my foundations have made to address forced migration, a problem we have been working on globally for decades and to which we have dedicated significant financial resources.”
Just remove the words 'philanthropic' (which does not mean at the elite level what you think it means) and realize that 'address' means 'facilitate' to Soros, and you will understand this sentence correctly; this is a carefully crafted statement of policy.
He continues: “We will seek investments in a variety of sectors, among them emerging digital technology, which seems especially promising as a way to provide solutions to the particular problems that dislocated people often face. Advances in this sector can help people gain access more efficiently to government, legal, financial and health services. Private businesses are already investing billions of dollars to develop such services for non-migrant communities.
This is why money now moves instantaneously from one mobile wallet to another, drivers find customers by using only a cellphone, and how a doctor in North America can see a patient in Africa in real time. Customizing and extending these innovations to serve migrants will help improve the quality of life for millions around the world.
All of the investments we make will be owned by my nonprofit organization. They are intended to be successful—because I want to show how private capital can play a constructive role helping migrants—and any profits will go to fund programs at the Open Society Foundations, including programs that benefit migrants and refugees.”
Thus, anyone who wishes to will be able to plug into the system you and your families have been paying into all your lives and access its main arteries with nothing more than a mobile phone. Soros, meanwhile, makes a load more money which he can then plough into the very organizations which will make sure the inflow of migrants never stops.
Soros goes on to claim: “As longtime champions of civil society, we will be focused on ensuring that our investments lead to products and services that truly benefit migrants and host communities.”
Leaving what Soros may mean by 'civil society', I turn to his use of 'benefit'; benefit according to whom? According to George Soros – a man who destabilizes sovereign states as part of his modus operandi.
Soros concludes: “We will also work closely with organizations such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Rescue Committee to establish principles to guide our investments. Our goal is to harness, for public good, the innovations that only the private sector can provide.
I hope my commitment will inspire other investors to pursue the same mission.”
What this means in English is: “The fix is in, and now all you smaller fish further down the food chain can make a nice buck off the gravy train of selling your countries out because if this weren’t a sure thing, I wouldn’t be in it.”
This is cultural- and ethnic-cleansing in a business suit; it is the de facto usurpation of the nation state as a social construct for the peoples of Europe as part of a multi-purpose war – one designed to destroy oil-rich states and any state with no central bank, while simultaneously collapsing sovereign states.
However, my point here is not the mass immigration – although with the inevitable, eventual annihilation of the middle class in Soros’ “host countries” there will be nowhere for genuine refugees to go; it is that we have taxation without even the fig leaf of representation so long as men like Soros can openly create and dictate policy.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
How George Soros Singlehandedly Created The European Refugee Crisis - And Why
By Tyler Darden
09 July 2016
George Soros is trading again.
The 85-year-old political activist and philanthropist hit the headlines post-Brexit saying the event had “unleashed” a financial-market crisis.
Well, the crisis hasn’t hit Soros just yet.
He was once again on the right side of the trade, taking a short position in troubled Deutsche Bank and betting against the S&P via a 2.1-million-share put option on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF.
More interestingly, Soros recently took out a $264 million position in Barrick Gold, whose share price has jumped over 14% since Brexit. Along with this trade, Soros has sold his positions in many of his traditional holdings.
Soros had recently announced he was coming out of retirement, again.
First retiring in 2000, the only other time Soros has publicly re-entered the markets was in 2007, when he placed a number of bearish bets on US housing and ultimately made a profit of over $1 billion from the trades.
Since the 1980s, Soros has actively been pursuing a globalist agenda; he advances this agenda through his Open Society Foundations (OSF).
What is this globalist agenda, and where does it come from?
The Humble Beginnings
The globalist seed was sowed for young George by his father, Tivadar, a Jewish lawyer who was a strong proponent of Esperanto. Esperanto is a language created in 1887 by L.L. Zamenhof, a Polish eye doctor, for the purpose of “transcending national borders” and “overcoming the natural indifference of mankind.”
Tivadar taught young George Esperanto and forced him to speak it at home. In 1936, as Hitler was hosting the Olympics in Berlin, Tivadar changed the family name from Schwartz to Soros, an Esperanto word meaning “will soar.”
George Soros, who was born and raised in Budapest, Hungary, benefited greatly from his father’s decision.
Allegedly, in 1944, 14-year-old George Soros went to work for the invading Nazis. It is said that until the end of the war in 1945, he worked with a government official, helping him confiscate property from the local Jewish population.
In an 1998 interview with 60 Minutes, Soros described the year of German occupation as “the happiest time in my life.”
Soros’s Venture into Finance
When the war ended, Soros moved to London and in 1947 enrolled in the London School of Economics where he studied under Karl Popper, the Austrian-British philosopher who was one of the first proponents of an “Open Society.”
Soros then worked at several merchant banks in London before moving to New York in 1963. In 1970, he founded Soros Fund Management and in 1973 created the Quantum Fund in partnership with investor Jim Rogers.
The fund made annual returns of over 30%, cementing Soros’s reputation and putting him in a position of power—one he utilizes to this day to advance the agenda of his mentors.
The Currency Speculations That Threw Britain and Asia into Crisis
In the 1990s, Soros began a string of large bets against national currencies. The first was in 1992, when he sold short the pound sterling and made a $1 billion profit in a single day.
His next big currency speculation came in 1997. This time Soros singled out the Thai baht and, with heavy short-selling volume, destroyed the baht’s artificial peg to the US dollar, which started the Asian financial crisis.
“Humanitarian” Efforts
Today, Soros’s net worth stands at $23 billion. Since taking a back seat in his company, Soros Fund Management, in 2000, Soros has been focusing on his philanthropic efforts, which he carries out through the Open Society Foundations he founded in 1993.
So who does he donate to, and what causes does he support?
During the 1980s and 1990s, Soros used his extraordinary wealth to bankroll and fund revolutions in dozens of European nations, including Czechoslovakia, Croatia, and Yugoslavia. He achieved this by funneling money to political opposition parties, publishing houses, and independent media in these nations.
If you wonder why Soros meddled in these nations’ affairs, part of the answer may lie in the fact that during and after the chaos, he invested heavily in assets in each of the respective countries.
He then used Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs to advise the fledgling governments to privatize all public assets immediately, thus allowing Soros to sell the assets he had acquired during the turmoil into newly formed open markets.
Having succeeded in advancing his agenda in Europe through regime change—and profiting in the process—he soon turned his attention to the big stage, the United States.
The Big Time
In 2004, Soros stated, “I deeply believe in the values of an open society. For the past 15 years I have been focusing my efforts abroad; now I am doing it in the United States.”
Since then, Soros has been funding groups such as:
•The American Institute for Social Justice, whose aim is to “transform poor communities through lobbying for increased government spending on social programs”
•The New America Foundation, whose aim is to “influence public opinion on such topics as environmentalism and global governance”
•The Migration Policy Institute, whose aim is to “bring about an illegal immigrant resettlement policy and increase social welfare benefits for illegals”
Soros also uses his Open Society Foundations to funnel money to the progressive media outlet, Media Matters.
Soros funnels the money through a number of leftist groups, including the Tides Foundation, Center for American Progress, and the Democracy Alliance in order to circumvent the campaign finance laws he helped lobby for.
Why has Soros donated so much capital and effort to these organizations? For one simple reason: to buy political power.
Democratic politicians who go against the progressive narrative will see their funding cut and be attacked in media outlets such as Media Matters, which also directly contribute to mainstream sites such as NBC, Al Jazeera, and The New York Times.
Apart from the $5 billion Soros’s foundation has donated to groups like those cited above, he has also made huge contributions to the Democratic Party and its most prominent members, like Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and of course Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Best Friends with the Clintons
Soros’s relationship with the Clintons goes back to 1993, around the time when OSF was founded. They have become close friends, and their enduring relationship goes well beyond donor status.
According to the book, The Shadow Party, by Horowitz and Poe, at a 2004 “Take Back America” conference where Soros was speaking, the former first lady introduced him saying, “[W]e need people like George Soros, who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts.”
Soros began supporting Hillary Clinton’s current presidential run in 2013, taking a senior role in the “Ready for Hillary” group. Since then, Soros has donated over $15 million to pro-Clinton groups and Super PACs.
More recently, Soros has given more than $33 million to the Black Lives Matter group, which has been involved in outbreaks of social unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, in 2015. Both of these incidents contributed to a worsening of race relations across America.
The same group heavily criticized Democratic contender Bernie Sanders for his alleged track record of supporting racial inequality, helping to undercut him as a competitive threat with one of Hillary Clinton’s most ardent constituencies.
This, of course, greatly enhances the clout Soros wields through the groups mentioned above. It is safe to assume that he is now able to drive Democratic policy, especially in an administration headed by Hillary Clinton.
Simply, what Soros wants, he gets. And it’s clear from his history that he wants to smudge away national borders and create the sort of globalist nightmare represented by the European Union.
In recent years, Soros has turned his attention back to Europe. Is it a coincidence that the continent is currently in economic and social disarray?
Another Home Run: the Ukrainian Conflict
There’s no doubt about Soros’s great influence on US foreign policy. In an October 1995 PBS interview with Charlie Rose, he said, “I do now have access [to US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott]. There is no question. We actually work together [on Eastern European policy].”
Soros’s meddling reared its ugly head again in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which began in early 2014.
In a May 2014 interview with CNN, Soros stated he was responsible for establishing a foundation in the Ukraine that ultimately led to the overthrow of the country’s elected leader and the installation of a junta handpicked by the US State Department, at the time headed by none other than Hillary Clinton:
CNN Host: First on Ukraine, one of the things that many people recognized about you was that you during the revolutions of 1989 funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in Eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?
Soros: Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now.
The war that ripped through the Ukrainian region of Donbass resulted in the deaths of over 10,000 people and the displacement of over 1.4 million people. As collateral damage, a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet was shot down, killing all 298 on board.
But once again Soros was there to profit from the chaos he helped create. His prize in Ukraine was the state-owned energy monopoly Naftogaz.
Soros again had his US cronies, Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew and US consulting company McKinsey, advise the puppet government of Ukraine to privatize Naftogaz.
Although Soros’s exact stake in Naftogaz has not been disclosed, in a 2014 memo he pledged to invest up to $1 billion in Ukrainian businesses, but no other Ukrainian holdings have since been reported.
His Latest Success: the European Refugee Crisis
Soros’s agenda is fundamentally about the destruction of national borders. This has recently been shown very clearly with his funding of the European refugee crisis.
The refugee crisis has been blamed on the civil war currently raging in Syria. But did you ever wonder how all these people suddenly knew Europe would open its gates and let them in?
The refugee crisis is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It coincided with OSF donating money to the US-based Migration Policy Institute and the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, both Soros-sponsored organizations. Both groups advocate the resettlement of third-world Muslims into Europe.
In 2015, a Sky News reporter found “Migrant Handbooks” on the Greek island of Lesbos. It was later revealed that the handbooks, which are written in Arabic, had been given to refugees before crossing the Mediterranean by a group called “Welcome to the EU.”
Welcome to the EU is funded by—you guessed it—the Open Society Foundations.
Soros has not only backed groups that advocate the resettlement of third-world migrants into Europe, he in fact is the architect of the “Merkel Plan.”
The Merkel Plan was created by the European Stability Initiative whose chairman Gerald Knaus is a senior fellow at none other than the Open Society Foundations.
The plan proposes that Germany should grant asylum to 500,000 Syrian refugees. It also states that Germany, along with other European nations, should agree to help Turkey, a country that’s 98% Muslim, gain visa-free travel within the EU starting in 2016.
Political Discourse
The refugee crisis has raised huge concern in European countries like Hungary.
In response to 7,000 migrants entering Hungarian territory per day in 2015, the Hungarian government reestablished border control in order to keep the hordes of refugees from entering the country.
Of course this did not go down well with Soros and his close allies, the Clintons.
Bill Clinton has since come out and accused both Poland and Hungary of thinking “democracy is too much trouble” and wanting to have a “Putin-like authoritarian dictatorship.”
Seeing through Clinton’s comments, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán responded by saying, “The remarks made about Hungary and Poland … have a political dimension. These are not accidental slips of the tongue. And these slips or remarks have been multiplying since we are living in the era of the migrant crisis. And we all know that behind the leaders of the Democratic Party, we have to see George Soros
He went on to say that “although the mouth belongs to Clinton, the voice belongs to Soros.”
Soros has since said of Orbán’s policy toward the migrants: “His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle. Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”
It’s hard to imagine that he could be any clearer in his globalist intentions.
The Profit Motive
So why is Soros going to such lengths to flood Europe with hordes of third-world Muslims?
We can’t be sure, but it has recently come to light that Soros has taken a large series of “bearish derivative positions” against US stocks. Apparently, he thinks that causing chaos in Europe will spread the contagion to the United States, thus sending US markets spiraling downward.
The destruction of Europe through flooding it with millions of unassimilated Muslims is a direct plan to cause economic and social chaos on the Continent.
Another example of turmoil equaling profit for George Soros, who seems to have his tentacles in most geopolitical events.
We all understand correlation is not causation. However, given Soros’s extraordinary wealth, political connections, and his long track record of seeing and profiting from chaos, he is almost certainly a catalyst for much of the geopolitical turmoil now occurring.
He is intent on destroying national borders and creating a global governance structure with unlimited powers. From his comments directed toward Viktor Orbán, we can see he clearly views national leaders as his juniors, expecting them to become puppets that sell his narrative to the ignorant masses.
Soros sees himself as a missionary carrying out the globalist agenda taught to him by his early mentors. He uses his vast political connections to influence government policy and create crises, both economic and social, to further this agenda.
By all appearances, Soros is conspiring against humanity and is hell-bent on the destruction of Western democracies.
To any rational thinker, some global events just don’t make sense. Why, for example, would Western democracies take in millions of people whose values are completely incompatible with their own?
When we look closely at the agenda being actively promoted by the leading globalist puppet master, George Soros, things become a little clearer.
Want to read more? If you haven’t done so already, sign-up for your free subscription to The Passing Parade from Garret/Galland Research.  It’s a rousing weekly romp on economics and markets, with a dose of politics and other follies. It’s free and you can cancel at any time. Click here now to start subscription today! [5]
On Soros & Gold
David, again.
While I’m not a conspiracy theorist per se, I do believe there is a naturally occurring and constant collaboration about shared interests occurring amongst the heads of governments, corporations, investment managers and all of the bottom feeders that survive off their scraps.
What I find most interesting about Soros is that he is so obvious in his intentions and persistent in their pursuit. Given the consequences of his actions, it is also clear he’s a believer in moral relativism and that the ends justify the means.
That he turns a nice buck in his crusade for what certainly rhymes with a one-world government is a Soros hallmark.
“It allows me the money needed to fund my philanthropies” he might answer to the charges he is profiting from blood in the streets he was instrumental in spilling.
Going forward when something big is happening geopolitically, I am going to start my analysis by checking under rocks for signs of Soros.
At the beginning of this article we noted that Soros has gone big into American Barrick (ABX), a leading gold producer. As of the end of March it was his single largest holding at 7.36% of his overall portfolio.
As telling, he has dumped a lot of his more conventional stocks in recent months.
Given the man’s inside track – and active manipulations – you might want to take the hint and pick up some physical gold as an insurance policy against a systematic shock.
If you already own gold, I probably wouldn’t chase it here as it has had a good run of late. Ditto silver which is up 46% year to date. But if you don’t own some, adding precious metals to your portfolio as a long-term holding, even at today’s prices, makes sense.
Per last week, I continue to believe the gold stocks have probably gotten ahead of themselves and could be in for a pretty significant correction. If so, I would be inclined to up my allocation to the sector to 20% of my total portfolio.
That said, no one can predict the future and gold could continue to power ahead, with the gold shares a more leveraged way to play the sector.
As always with gold shares, it is important to remember a few things:
•In most cases, these are speculations. That’s because their financial metrics often don’t line up with anything looking like a good value. What you are really betting on is a revaluation of the ounces of gold or silver a company is sitting on.  Thus, if a company is sitting on one million ounces of gold and gold goes up by $100, the company just got a lot more valuable.
•Never fall in love with a gold stock.  Set a rational return goal and once hit, at least scrape your original investment off the table. That way you are playing with the casino’s money.
Also per my article last week, keep in mind that should gold stocks buck the trend in a future global equities correction, the money managers who own big positions in gold stocks will almost certainly dump their holdings in order to dress up the rest of their portfolios. As the trading volume in precious metals share is relatively thin, you want to beat them out the door.
•Embrace the volatility. The low trading volume of most of these stocks is a key reason they have such explosive upside. Any significant uptick in investor interest can send a stock soaring.
However, the flipside is also true. In the bear market that started in 2011, the majority of the precious metals stocks lost upwards of 75% of their value and many simply dried up and went away. Enjoy the ride, but don’t stay too late at the party.
Earlier this week I commented to a friend that if the EU was going to remain relevant, there had to be some major financial pain dished out post-Brexit. To let that seminal event pass with nothing more than the equivalent of a global shrug would entirely change how people view the European Union.
The bottom line, I’m expecting some volatility, perhaps triggered by Soros taking a second run at crushing the British pound, the source of much of his fortune and fame.
It’s promising to be a long, hot summer.
Here Come the Clowns
Nothing comes close to the Get Out of Jail card handed by the clowns at the FBI to Hillary over her private email servers. This despite pretty much no one disputes she broke any number of federal laws of the sort which would have landed a lesser clown in jail.
To quote FBI Director James Comey, “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
There is nuance in that statement. For starters, that there is evidence of violations. But also the stark political reality that no “reasonable prosecutor” would enforce the laws, considering who the perp is: the standard bearer for the Democrats going into this election.
Besides, going after Clinton means crossing swords with Soros and no “reasonable prosecutor” would want to do that.
Just saying…
Also See:
Would the Real George Soros Please Stand Up!
(Part 1)
03 December 2010
(Part 2)
03 May 2016
The US Media and Fabrication of Facts!
(Part 1)
06 October 2010
The Reality of the Media - An Alternate Universe
18 May 2010
The Media - Why Didn't They Report This?
22 July 2009
TV, Radio, & Newspapers
28 July 2007