With every passing day, the United States government borrows yet another leaf from Nazi Germany’s playbook: Secret police. Secret courts. Secret government agencies. Surveillance. Censorship. Intimidation. Harassment. Torture. Brutality. Widespread corruption. Entrapment. Indoctrination. Indefinite detention. These are not tactics used by constitutional republics, where the rule of law and the rights of the citizenry should reign supreme. Rather, they are the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes, where the only law that counts comes in the form of heavy-handed, unilateral dictates from a supreme ruler who uses a secret police to control the populace. That danger is now posed by the FBI, whose laundry list of crimes against the American people includes surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation tactics, harassment, governmental overreach, abuse, misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property, and that’s just based on what we know.
…again and again and again and again.
They’ve admitted to upper atmospheric aerosol spraying for a long time.
Like this speech by CIA director John Brennan to the Council of Foreign Relations… He’s not talking about something theoretical, he’s talking about available technologies.
“Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.”
He needs to only provide crumbs. We need to find the truth ourself, with as little help as possible. Otherwise too few people would believe. This is paramount. People have tried to tell the truth (think of famous celebrities), and guess what happens? We don’t believe them, ridicule them, and they most likely get offed or worse.
It is so incredibly important to understand this. And it’s important we meme it that way; don’t lay it all out for the normal fags, but ask questions. Lead them to the answers, and make them think they came up with it themselves. That’s how you redpill.
Ask questions; lead them to discover answers themselves
How to go viral
If you want to meme/redpill successfully there are are a few ways you can go:
Comedy just sticks. Most anon came to the chans for the funny memes. They work best when you hijack something universally known (like bert and ernie) or highly actual/big events (like 911); and start combining shit.
Question the viewer, sometimes literally, but visually is best. You need to make people think they found out something themselves in the big sea of the internet. It’s the best way to plant an idea.
Obviously there are a lot more ways, but it basically comes to this. Subtlety is key. And when one combines all of the above in the correct way, it might go viral.
How she redpilled her sister
Yes! She was the hardest one too! I told her I was gonna red pill her. I told her to look up politicians wearing a med boot and when she figured it out for herself, call me back. She took about 10 mins and said “Ok, you piqued my interest, what else?” so I told her to look up politicians with black eyes and call me back. What I did doing that is REMOVE the built in hate of republicans vs. dems in her mind. Once she saw it is both, she was more open to listen to me. I then told her to look up who Sally Quinn is and her history with her book tour and call me back. I proved the Satanic control over MSM with their own confessions. Told her to look up the arrest results for the child sex (human trafficking) arrests for this year alone and call me back. I told her to find the stats for the last 10 years of child sex arrests and compare them to this 1 single year. Now she no longer makes me make her prove it with her own eyes and just wants me to tell her what all of you have come to a consensus of.
Recipe for redpilling, especially women
1 cup something easy to swallow. I suggest “did you know Hugh Hefner got his start with CIA money?” (Gentle blackmail, make it more movie plot like, and changing culture for the worse)
Or “how are you doing hearing about all of the Hollywood sleezes?”
Again, noting an intentional culture change. Why? Have they noticed? Who is behind it?
1 cup personal “have you had anything like that in your life?”
“Known anyone that had anything like that?”
1 cup proven history: “reminds me of the …” franklin scandel, British scandal, Belgium scandal: whatever you know better.
1 cup “makes sense it’s probably happening here right now:
Have you seen Podestas art?” Who is Podesta, what is spirit cooking, how did Wikileaks reveal it.
Leave them to think for awhile.
Finish the job with q drop when they return to ask questions.
Read Q Spreadsheet
https:// docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Efm2AcuMJ7whuuB6T7ouOIwrE_9S-1vDJLAXIVPZU2g/edit#gid=1596710080 (check current General bread for latest spreadsheet link if this one is down)
Spouse self red pilled by reading entire Q spreadsheet in 2 days, was able to return to work life with a “Let me know if it comes true.”
Barrie Trower On 5G Microwaves ; There is No safe Place, No Where To Go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2DSK…
Apple 666, Artemis, iPads (infertility pads), Project Inkwell, Connect ED, E-rate, and Agenda 21-an expose with an all star cast https://thefullertoninformer.com/appl…
Hillary Clinton may have lost by a substantially larger margin had Google not manipulated the search results in her favor. Even trending negative searches about the corrupt democrat were suppressed. According to an exclusive by Breitbart, the conclusions are based on 16 months of experiments conducted with a total of 1,800 people from all 50 U.S. states. Participants in the study came from diverse ideological backgrounds, including liberal, conservative, and moderate. In order to control prior biases, participants were asked to judge political candidates that they were unfamiliar with.
The research showed that the manipulation of results pages in search engines can shift the voting preferences of undecideds by anywhere between 20 and 80 percent, depending on the demographic –meaning Google was attempting to rig the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton.
The voting preferences of participants who saw no search suggestions shifted toward the favored candidate by 37.1%. The voting preferences of participants in the search suggestion groups who saw only positive search suggestions shifted similarly (35.6%). However, the voting preferences of participants who saw three positive search suggestions and one negative search suggestion barely shifted (1.8%); this occurred because the negative search suggestion attracted more than 40% of the clicks (negativity bias). In other words, a single negative search suggestion can impact opinions dramatically. Participants who were shown four negative suggestions (and no positives) shifted away from the candidate shown in the search bar (-43.4%). -Epstein, Mohr, & Martinez, The Search Suggestion Effect, 2018
Led by Dr. Robert Epstein, the researchers concluded that by using this method of manipulation, search engines can shift a “50/50 split among people who are undecided on an issue to a 90/10 split without people’s awareness and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to follow.” Meaning the real collusion during the 2016 election was not between Trump and the Russians, but was between tech giants and their propaganda scheme and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It is no longer a conspiracy theory that Google is manipulating people. Just look at the heavy amount of manipulation in Google’s “suggested” searches in comparison to those of Bing and Yahoo. The researchers suggested that the search suggestion manipulation made against Google during the 2016 election when the tech giant appeared to be suppressing negative search suggestions for Hillary Clinton while allowing negative suggestions for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders to remain.
REPORT: Secret Meeting Between Obama & Comey Took Place Two Weeks Before Donald Trump Became President
James Comey never mentioned this meeting while testifying under oath to Congress. He never mentioned it in interviews to media, or in his book. In fact, the meeting that took place between himself and Barack Obama was so secret there was no official record of it having taken place at all.
- The Daily Caller News Foundation and Judicial Watch filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday
- The lawsuit is seeking records related to meetings between former FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama
- Comey’s statements regarding times he met with the president conflict with other statements and records
The Daily Caller News Foundation and the watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday seeking records to determine the actual number of times and reasons former FBI Director James Comey met with then-President Barack Obama.
The request by the two organizations was filed because the former FBI director claimed he rarely met with Obama, and he was an independent and nonpartisan leader of the nation’s top law enforcement agency. The parties filed the lawsuit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Comey’s impartiality about his relationship with Obama was sharply called into question by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary when its chairman, Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, uncovered a private, undisclosed meeting Comey held with Obama on Jan. 5, 2017, two weeks before Trump’s inauguration.
TheDCNF requested, “records that identify and describe all meetings between former FBI Director James Comey and President Barack Obama,” in its Freedom of Information Act request before the FBI, which it filed Feb. 19.
On May 22, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch sought records for a broader set of Comey meetings including Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and top political figures. Its request included records “written or ordered written by FBI Director James Comey summarizing his conversations with any of the following individuals: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Senator Chuck Schumer, Representative Nancy Pelosi, and Senator John McCain.” Their timeframe for its request was between Sept. 4, 2013 and May 9, 2017.
Comey has carefully parsed his words about his interactions with Obama. In his June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence he suggested his firsthand meetings with the Democratic president were rare. He claimed he only spoke with Obama twice, once in 2015 and another “to say goodbye in late 2016,” according the former FBI director’s testimony.
“As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years,” he said. “I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016,” Comey’s opening statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee read.
Grassley along with South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is a Judiciary subcommittee chairman, discovered through the National Archives that Obama met with Comey on Jan. 5, 2017, two weeks before Trump’s inauguration.
Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, recorded the meeting in an email around 12 p.m on Inauguration Day. She addressed the email to herself.
“President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office,” Rice stated.
In a Feb. 8, 2017, letter to Rice, Grassley and Graham wrote, “It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation.”
Biden and Yates joined Rice and Obama in the meeting.
By failing to inform the Congress about the Jan. 5 meeting, Comey may have deliberately misled Congress about his interactions with the former president.
Did McCabe Order FBI Agents To “Stand Down” On Early Clinton Email Investigation?
Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe reportedly gave a “stand-down” order to FBI agents who began probing Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for official government business following a report in the New York Times, reports journalist Sara Carter, citing “multiple former FBI officials, along with a Congressional official.”
After The New York Times publication, the FBI Washington Field Office began investigating Clinton’s use of private emails and whether she was using her personal email account to transmit classified information. According to sources, McCabe was overseas when he became aware of the investigation and sent electronic communications voicing his displeasure with the agents. –Sara Carter
“Electronic communications” you say? Sounds like McCabe picked the right time to relaunch his new legal defense fund.
McCabe’s reported March 2015 “stand down” order to agents investigating the New York Times report may have broken FBI rules, to say the least. The official DOJ request to investigate Clinton would not be issued until the end of July 2015, four months later.
“McCabe tried to steer people off the private email investigation and that appears to be obstruction and should be investigated,” said one former FBI official with knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the investigation. “Now if the information on the ‘stand-down’ order is obtained by the IG that could bring a whole lot of other troubles to McCabe.”
Last week, Inspector General Michael Horowitz released an internal report which revealed that McCabe had lied four times to investigators, including twice while under oath, about authorizing an F.B.I. spokesman and attorney to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St. Journal, just days before the 2016 election, that he had not issued a similar “stand-down” order on the reported FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation – right around the time McCabe was coming under fire for his wife Jill taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from Clinton
proxy pal, Terry McAuliffe.
So McCabe was accused of a “stand-down” order during the 2016 election, for which he authorized the leak that got him fired – and he now stands accused of a separate, previous “stand-down” order as agents began to follow up on a March 2 2015 New York Times report into Clinton’s use of a private server.
Horowitz and his team of investigators at the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have been sifting through more than 1.2 million documents, of which Sara Carter‘s sources say 46,000 are connected to ongoing investigations. “Of those documents, Congress has received a tiny fraction of the emails pertaining to their oversight investigations.”
Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in September 2017 against the FBI for the communications on behalf of retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Jeff Danik, as previously reported. Danik spent more than 28 years with the bureau as a supervisor in the counter-terrorism division and special overseas advisor. Thus far, the FBI has failed to abide by a judge’s order to turn over all of former McCabe’s text messages, emails and SMS phone messages. –Sara Carter
According to the OIG report on McCabe, the Wall Street Journal article which used McCabe’s leak “discussed not only the FBI’s handling of the Clinton E-mail Investigation but ‘internal disagreements within the Bureau and the Justice Department surrounding the Clintons’ family philanthropy.’” It stated that “McCabe, in particular, was caught . . . [in] an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case.”
The former law enforcement sources who spoke to this reporter said a possible stand-down order on the Clinton Foundation investigation doesn’t preclude another stand-down order from McCabe on the Clinton email server investigation. They noted that it appears from the IG’s report that the Justice Department was attempting to dissuade McCabe from moving forward with the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation. McCabe said he authorized the disclosure to The Wall Street Journal of his conversation with the DOJ’s Principal Assistant Attorney General (PADAG) in an effort to counter the narrative that he had given a stand-down order on the Bureau’s Clinton Foundation investigation. –Sara Carter
Meanwhile, ol’ Andy has received two referrals seeking criminal prosecution – the first sent last week by 11 GOP Congressional legislators, and the second coming from Inspector General Horowitz. As Carter notes, evidence collected by the Inspector General has raised new questions over McCabe’s role in the FBI’s investigations of Clinton and Trump – as well as what role President Obama’s DOJ (and State Department) may have played in both.
The mainstream media took no notice of a federal court filing that exposes a $84 million money-laundering conspiracy Democrats executed during the 2016 presidential election.
The press continues to feed the dying Russia collusion conspiracy theory, spending Friday’s news cycle regurgitating Democrat talking points from the just-filed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks, and Russia.
Yet the mainstream media took no notice of last week’s federal court filing that exposes an $84 million money-laundering conspiracy the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign executed during the 2016 presidential election in violation of federal campaign-finance law.
That lawsuit, filed last week in a DC district court, summarizes the DNC-Clinton conspiracy and provides detailed evidence from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings confirming the complaint’s allegations that Democrats undertook an extensive scheme to violate federal campaign limits.
From Bundling To Money Laundering
Dan Backer, a campaign-finance lawyer and attorney-of-record in the lawsuit, explained the underlying law in an article for Investor’s Business Daily: Under federal law, “an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party’s main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits—it’s legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfer to their national party.”
This legal loophole allows “bundlers” to raise large sums of money from wealthy donors—more than $400,000 at a time—filtering the funds to the national committees. Democrats and Republicans alike exploit this tactic. But once the money reaches the national committees, other limits apply.
Suspecting the DNC had exceeded those limits, a client of Backer’s, the Committee to Defend the President, began reviewing FEC filings to determine whether there was excessive coordination between the DNC and Clinton. What Backer discovered, as he explained in an interview, was much worse. There was “extensive evidence in the Democrats’ own FEC reports, when coupled with their own public statements that demonstrated massive straw man contributions papered through the state parties, to the DNC, and then directly to Clinton’s campaign—in clear violation of federal campaign-finance law.”
On behalf of his clients, on December 15, 2017 Backer filed an 86-page complaint with the FEC, asking the FEC to commence enforcement proceedings against Hillary Clinton, her campaign and its treasurer, the DNC and its treasurer, and the participating state Democratic committees. The complaint, and an attached exhibit consisting of nearly 20 pages of Excel spreadsheets, detailed the misconduct and provided concrete evidence supporting the allegations. In short, here’s what happened and what the evidence establishes.
Think Of It Like A Shell Game With Millions Of Dollars
During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and participating state Democratic committees established the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) as a joint fundraising committee to accept contributions from large donors, some exceeding $400,000. So far, so good. To comply with campaign finance law, the HVF needed to transfer the donations to the specified recipients, whether the Clinton campaign, down-ticket Democrats, the DNC, or state committees.
FEC records, however, show several large contributions reported as received by the HVF and the same amount on the same day (or occasionally the following day) recorded as received by the DNC from a state Democratic committee, but without the state Democratic committee ever reporting the contribution.
For instance, the HVF reported transferring $19,500 to the Mississippi Democratic Party on November 2, 2015, and the Democratic National Committee reported receiving $19,500 from the Mississippi Democratic Party on November 2, 2015. But the Mississippi Democratic Party never recorded the receipt or the disbursement of the $19,500, and without the Mississippi Democratic Party controlling the funds, the HVF’s contribution to the DNC violated campaign finance law.
Over a 13-month period, FEC records show some 30 separate occasions when the HVF transferred contributions totaling more than $10 million to the DNC without any corresponding record of the receipt or disbursement from the state parties, thus illegally leap-frogging the state Democratic parties.
On the other hand, of the contributions state parties reported as received from the HVF, 99 percent wound up at the DNC. They were transferred immediately or within a day or two, raising questions of whether the state Democratic committees truly exercised control over the money—something necessary under campaign finance law to allow a later-legal transfer to the DNC.
Again, the evidence is damning. According to Politico, “[w]hile state party officials were made aware that Clinton’s campaign would control the movement of the funds between participating committees, one operative who has relationships with multiple state parties said that some of their officials have complained that they weren’t notified of the transfers into and out of their accounts until after the fact.”
‘Using The Party As A Fundraising Clearinghouse’
But the Clinton campaign’s control of the contributions did not end once the funds reached the DNC, as the complaint filed with the FEC detailed. Rather, public statements by former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile acknowledged that “[a]s Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”
Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of the Clinton campaign, which operated as Hillary For America “HFA,” out of Brooklyn, New York, likewise stated that the Democratic Party was “fully under the control of the Clinton campaign . . . . The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse.”
By excercising control over the DNC’s funds, including funds transferred from the HVF through the state parties, the contributions qualified as donations to the Clinton campaign for purposes of federal campaign finance law, and when properly accounted for exceeded the legal contribution limits.
The Supreme Court Made It Clear This Is Illegal
The illegality of this scheme isn’t a matter of debate. The Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC that this exact scenario would violate the law. Here’s how the court laid it out: “[A] donor gives a $500,000 check to a joint fundraising committee composed of a candidate, a national party committee, and most of the party’s state party committees. The committees divide up the money so that each one receives the maximum contribution permissible under the base limits, but then each transfers its allocated portion to the same single committee. That committee uses the money for coordinated expenditures on behalf of a particular candidate.”
The Supreme Court then declared: “Lest there be any confusion, a joint fundraising committee is simply a mechanism for individual committees to raise funds collectively, not to circumvent base limits or earmarking rules. Under no circumstances may a contribution to a joint fundraising committee result in an allocation that exceeds the contribution limits applicable to its constituent parts; the committee is in fact required to return any excess funds to the contributor.” And “the earmarking provision prohibits an individual from directing funds ‘through an intermediary or conduit to a particular candidate.”
This “scenario could not succeed,” the Supreme Court explained, “without assuming that nearly 50 separate party committees would engage in a transparent violation of the earmarking rules (and that they would not be caught if they did).” Caught Clinton was. Yet the FEC failed to act on Backer’s complaint, even though federal law authorizes any person to file “a complaint with the FEC alleging a violation of federal campaign finance law.”
FEC Declines To Follow The Law
Upon receipt of Backer’s complaint, the FEC was required to notify those accused of violating federal law of the charges. Then the commissioners were required to determine whether there was “reason to believe” a violation occurred. Following a finding by four FEC commissioners that there was “reason to believe” a violation has occurred, the FEC must investigate the complaint.
“Very Pissed Off” Obama DOJ Made “Dramatic” Call To McCabe To Quash Clinton Probe
As the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation pressed on during the 2016 election, a senior official with the Obama justice department, identified as Matthew Axelrod, called former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe – who thought the DOJ was pressuring him to shut down the investigation, according to the recently released inspector general’s (OIG) report.
The official was “very pissed off” at the FBI, the report says, and demanded to know why the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the case dormant. –Washington Times
The OIG issued a criminal referral for McCabe based on findings that the former Deputy Director “made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor – including under oath – on multiple occasions.”
McCabe authorized a self-serving leak to the New York Times claiming that the FBI had not put the brakes on the Clinton Foundation investigation, during a period in which he was coming under fire over a $467,500 campaign donation his wife Jill took from Clinton pal Terry McAuliffe.
“It is bizarre — and that word can’t be used enough — to have the Justice Department call the FBI’s deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption investigation,” said James Wedick – a former FBI official who conducted corruption investigations at the bureau. “They can have some input, but they shouldn’t be operationally in control like it appears they were from this call.”
Wedick said he’s never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases during his 35 years there – which suggests an attempt at interference by the Obama administration.
As the Washington Times Jeff Mordock points out, Although the inspector general’s report did not identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod, who was the principal associate deputy attorney general — the title the IG report did use.
Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.
He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. –Washington Times
“According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ‘are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?’” the report reads. “McCabe told us that the conversation was ‘very dramatic’ and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a high-level department official in his entire FBI career.”
CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns
CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck’s controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.
Many people who support gun control are angry that the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are not legally allowed to use money from Congress to do research whose purpose is “to advocate or promote gun control.” (This is not the same as doing no research into gun violence, though it seems to discourage many potential recipients of CDC money.)
But in the 1990s, the CDC itself did look into one of the more controversial questions in gun social science: How often do innocent Americans use guns in self-defense, and how does that compare to the harms guns can cause in the hands of violent criminals?
Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck’s results. But Kleck didn’t know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck’s new paper—”What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?“**—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998.