Category: Government Lies


Via WikiLeaks: Pelosi May Have Known About Imran Awan

Time to get beyond fake news and White House turmoil.  There is one serious issue that needs to be addressed. Don’t count on the MSM to do it!
Some Democrats have apparently been engaged in highly questionable activities, and the Soros dominated MSM will not cover their most egregious actions which border on treaso.
The first post below is and excerpt from the latest regarding the scandal of the century that the MSM refuses to cover. It is followed by segments from just a few of the many articles authored by others who have been heralding what the MSM ignores.

From The Daily Caller:
Establishment Media Refuse To Cover House IT Scandal Rocking Democrats
Leading members of the establishment media are ignoring the months-long House IT scandal rocking congressional Democrats, even after the FBI’s investigation into the matter became public, and even after Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s top IT aide was arrested trying to flee to Pakistan after wiring almost $300,000 to the country.
As of Thursday morning, both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have yet to report on the growing scandal surrounding several IT staffers employed by House Democrats, including Wasserman Schultz’s top IT aide, Imran Awan.
Other establishment media outlets are similarly refusing to tell the public about the growing scandal. MSNBC has given zero on-air coverage to the scandal. ABC News and NBC News’ national broadcasts have similarly given zero coverage to the scandal. CNN’s only on-air coverage of the scandal so far was a brief mention during the 6 a.m. ET hour Thursday.
As reported by The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Luke Rosiak — who for months has extensively covered the growing scandal — Awan was arrested on Monday as he attempted to flee the country to Pakistan after wiring almost $300,000 to the country. The FBI seized smashed hard drives from Awan’s home as part of the ongoing investigation. (RELATED: FBI Seized Smashed Hard Drives From Wasserman Schultz IT Aide’s Home)
The Pakistani-born Awan attempted to flee the country shortly after Rosiak’s report that he was the subject of an FBI investigation. Awan’s wife, who was also on congressional Democrats’ payroll, previously fled to Pakistan, as first reported by Rosiak. continue

From Powdered Wig Society:
If this case, which begins with the Awan brothers and goes to the highest levels of Congress, is pursued with a fraction of the energy and resources that have been expended on the Russian fairy tale, then I believe many people are going to jail and some of them are high-profile Democrat members of Congress.
We are just beginning to scratch the surface, but so far we know that there are ties between some of those involved and the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Top Secret national security information may well have been, and very likely was, compromised… FrontPage Magazine.
The signatories to the letter were Andre Carson, Luis Guiterez, Jim Himes, Terri Sewell, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell and Patrick Murphy.

Pamela Geller has written extensively on this issue: below is an excerpt on one of many of her articles.
Rep Steve King: Democrat Muslim IT spy ring is “an enormous act of treason, a lot of people complicit” had access to “all the communication of the Foreign Affairs Committee”
There is a reason the fake newsmedia is filling the airwaves with Trump/Russia bunk. It’s the old sleight of hand. Don’t look there, look here?
Where’s Jeff Sessions? Where the hell is everyone?
The scandal goes all the way to the top – Clinton and Pelosi. The list of those reportedly employing the Awans and their associates includes these 23 current or former Democrats in Congress, including: Andre Carson, Luis Guiterez, Jim Himes, Terri Sewell, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell, Patrick Murphy, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joaquini Castro, Lois Frankel, Ted Lieu, Robin Kelly, Tammy Duckworth, Mark Takano, John Sarbanes, Diana DeGette, Cedric Richmond, Charlie Crist, Jacky Rosen, Sandy Levin, Karen Bass and Marcia Fudge… continue At the end of this post are links with many more alarming details on the matter.

Daily Caller:
Chris Gowen, Imran Awan’s lawyer, is a long-time campaigner for former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a member of an attorney team that brought a fraudulent lawsuit against energy giant Chevron.
Pakistani-born Awan was arrested late Monday at Dulles Airport in Northern Virginia before he could board a flight to Qatar and then Pakistan on bank fraud charges. Awan, his younger brothers, Abid and Jamal, his wife, Hina Alvi, and Rao Abbas, his best friend, have been subjects of a federal criminal investigation led by the U.S. Capitol Police and including the FBI since February 2017. more

Gateway Pundit
Via WikiLeaks: Pelosi May Have Known About Imran AwanJ 
Don’t look to the mainstream media to tell you how troubling the situation with the Awan brothers is. It’s worse than you think. After Imran Awan was arrested this week for trying to flee the country, WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange reminded his 279,000 Twitter followers of an email link between Imran Awan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. (emphasis mine)  continue
There appears to be a more horrendous scandal in association with the above discussed one–the blatant refusal of the Democrats and the MSM to acknowledge, much less investigate such an obvious act of betrayal and possible treason against America.
The Democrat leadership does not serve this nation. Apparently they serve and protect not only themselves, but also the elites and globalists—- which includes many of them.

As usual the bought and paid for lapdog MSM & previous administration ignored these findings because they would have wrecked the very foundation of the Russiagate narrative.

NSA Officials and Computer Expert: Forensic Evidence Proves DNC Emails Were LEAKED, Not Hacked

Preface by Washington’s Blog: We asked top NSA whistleblower Bill Binney what he thought about a report claiming that the DNC emails were transferred too quickly to have been accessed by a hacker, and could only have been copied by a DNC leaker. This article is his response.   Background here and here.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?
Executive Summary
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.
After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].

Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.
The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.
NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here].
Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”
Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).
From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:

-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2017, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and
-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”
*  *  *
Mr. President:
This is our first VIPS Memorandum for you, but we have a history of letting U.S. Presidents know when we think our former intelligence colleagues have gotten something important wrong, and why. For example, our first such memorandum, a same-day commentary for President George W. Bush on Colin Powell’s U.N. speech on March 5, 2003, warned that the “unintended consequences were likely to be catastrophic,” should the U.S. attack Iraq and “justfy” the war on intelligence that we retired intelligence officers could readily see as fraudulent and driven by a war agenda.
The January 6 “Intelligence Community Assessment” by “hand-picked” analysts from the FBI, CIA, and NSA seems to fit into the same agenda-driven category. It is largely based on an “assessment,” not supported by any apparent evidence, that a shadowy entity with the moniker “Guccifer 2.0” hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks.
The recent forensic findings mentioned above have put a huge dent in that assessment and cast serious doubt on the underpinnings of the extraordinarily successful campaign to blame the Russian government for hacking. The pundits and politicians who have led the charge against Russian “meddling” in the U.S. election can be expected to try to cast doubt on the forensic findings, if they ever do bubble up into the mainstream media. But the principles of physics don’t lie; and the technical limitations of today’s Internet are widely understood. We are prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their merits.
You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this. Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down.
Copied, Not Hacked
As indicated above, the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named “Guccifer 2.0.” The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to “blame the Russians” for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who “hacked” those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant “mainstream” media; they are still on a roll.
“The Russians” were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, “We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own “forensic facts” and prime the media pump to put the blame on “Russian meddling.” Mrs. Clinton’s PR chief Jennifer Palmieri has explained how she used golf carts to make the rounds at the convention. She wrote that her “mission was to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.”
Independent cyber-investigators have now completed the kind of forensic work that the intelligence assessment did not do. Oddly, the “hand-picked” intelligence analysts contented themselves with “assessing” this and “assessing” that. In contrast, the investigators dug deep and came up with verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of the alleged Russian hack.
They found that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.
The Time Sequence
June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”
June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: On the same day, “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”
We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.
The Key Event
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a “Russian hack.” This was all performed in the East Coast time zone.
“Obfuscation & De-obfuscation”
Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled “Vault 7.” WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015.
Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the “Marble Framework” program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as “news fit to print” and was kept out of the Times.
The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, “did not get the memo” in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: “WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.”
The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use “obfuscation,” and that Marble source code includes a “deobfuscator” to reverse CIA text obfuscation.
More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a “forensic attribution double game” or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.
The CIA’s reaction was neuralgic. Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates “demons,” and insisting, “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”
Mr. President, we do not know if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review.
Putin and the Technology
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly, he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today’s technology enables hacking to be “masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin” [of the hack] … And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.”
“Hackers may be anywhere,” he said. “There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? … I can.”
Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues.
We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental. The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times. This is our 50th VIPS Memorandum since the afternoon of Powell’s speech at the UN. Live links to the 49 past memos can be found at https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos/.
FOR THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center
Skip Folden, independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US (Associate VIPS)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Michael S. Kearns, Air Force Intelligence Officer (Ret.), Master SERE Resistance to Interrogation Instructor
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Lisa Ling, TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Cian Westmoreland, former USAF Radio Frequency Transmission Systems Technician and Unmanned Aircraft Systems whistleblower (Associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat

Source:Zero Hedge 

Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.

by Flavia Eckholm
For the last several years, through social media, I have gotten to hear, to read and to respond in real life terms to what is happening in the world of politics. We have been able to selectively share articles about what we believe are the real concerns of society instead of passively accepting what others wish to dictate to us should be our concerns.

In that vein, the nature of public discourse has uncovered some troubling aspects about the limitations, as well as the extent of our powers of persuasion using media and political activism to bend public opinion. It is always easier to spread negativity and fear than it is to inspire positive participation with people. Liberalism doesn’t require fact based knowledge as long as emotional theory can construct skepticism that the person next to you has only the worst motives of your well being and that big government only has the best motives. Neo-conservatism constructs a similar emotional reaction using historical relevance linked to future military might being the only answer to perpetual assertion for global domination. From either direction of origin, the outcome is totalitarianism or authoritarianism. Each side believing that they will ultimately conquer the other through force, rather than through persuasion. Persuasion requires logic, analysis and at least some relevance to mutually understood facts. The stumbling block there is that there are few mutually understood facts that I can discern.

The struggles with this administration are as much within as without. The far left has embarked on an irrational fear, hate based rhetoric that has been designed to create a perpetual state of chaos and instability. The left have offered few solutions other than to shut down speech, religion, market based solutions and progress of any real kind. However, within our own community, there is much disparity about how to achieve common goals of containing terror, sustaining an economy, controlling our borders and personal responsibility. Moral questions about societal responsibility for the care of the most vulnerable and how much independence are people brave enough to assume, don’t appear to me to be settled.

My question to the globalists: If the US is such an evil entity, why are you so energized at exporting more of our culture? If we don’t seem to have the answers to any of the big issues why not find those answers here first? Importing the third world here only weakens whatever strengths and cohesion we have as a nation. If you had the answers, you wouldn’t have to extend your influence forcibly; nations would emulate your finest examples. If you distrust your own people, why do you think you can trust a foreign import more?

My question to the Neocons: If you knew all the answers to other nation’s problems, why can’t you solve the US problems? If you spent your resources into building our country to being strong militarily for security, economically for stability and Constitutionally for American justice, wouldn’t our laboratory of success provide the best solutions for other nations? You have been looking for those solutions in the Middle East and Asia for as long as I have been alive, yet, your hostility for a free market displays your distrust in human nature of your own people. Has anyone ever pointed out to you that your control issues are much like your Liberal counterparts?
My question to the established ruling class: other than self enrichment, what connection do you have to the people that you are supposed to be serving? You offer no support to the elected person who is head of your party, yet you expect the people to be able to support you to stay in office. Why do you believe that you are not responsible for the unraveling of the trust people have in whatever part of government they believe is necessary for stabilizing this nation? The right has a healthy distrust in government, so why are you disrupting the little trust they have remaining?

If you weren’t certain that the people behind the infamous dossier on Donald Trump and Russia were hiding something before, their actions in the past week should put it beyond a certainty. The Senate Intelligence Committee sent a request to Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of opposition research firm Fusion GPS to testify before them this week. Simpson, through his lawyer, released a statement on Friday declining the invitation…supposedly because he is “on vacation.” Of course, that it not the only reason he’ll be unavailable to speak in Washington. His lawyer also said that “partisan agendas” were taking root in congressional investigations, causing Simpson to grow “profoundly disturbed” with the direction of the inquiry.

Perhaps because that inquiry is getting closer and closer to the truth?

In any event, the statement irritated Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who subsequently issued a subpoena demanding that Simpson appear in Washington on Wednesday. Citing the charge that Simpson may have failed to register as a foreign agent in his work for Fusion GPS, Grassley said he would expect to see the opposition researcher in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. His lawyer once again declined, insisting that while Simpson may appear, he will only do so to invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

“This hearing’s purported focus on FARA [the Foreign Agents Registration Act] is pretext for an exploration of Fusion GPS’ reported work, on behalf of other clients, to investigate the ties of Donald J. Trump, his campaign and their associates to Russia,” said Simpson’s lawyer.

Yes, well, that’s probably true to an extent. The problem is that Simpson’s lawyer presents this scenario as though there’s some epic Republican ruse going on here to drag his client’s good name through the mud. The reality is quite a bit more nuanced. As all sides agree, the Russians had some degree of involvement in meddling in the 2016 election. And there’s no question that Fusion GPS and the dossier they produced through their funding of former British spy Christopher Steele played a part in that meddling to one degree or another. Therefore, it is very much a direct aspect of the Senate’s investigation into those matters for them to get to the bottom of that dossier, figure out who was ultimately paying Fusion GPS for their work, and even determine how and why Fusion was involved in setting up that controversial meeting between Donald Trump’s campaign team and that Russian lawyer last June.

The very existence of the dossier – much of which has been discredited by the U.S. intelligence community – is proof that Fusion GPS, their clients, and the Russians were out to destroy Trump in some form or fashion. It’s not beyond the scope of Congressional investigation to demand some answers about that sensitive topic.

The action pictured above is also happening in certain areas of the U.S.
The sheer size of America dilutes the impact overall, but in areas where it does take place, it is most definitely felt. The difference between Europe and most of America is that in the U.S., the “authorities” can attempt to cover up Islamic crimes for so long without irate push back from the citizenry.
Also, all over America, angry parents are challenging the teaching of Islam in the public schools that goes far beyond a historical context and plunges into outright religious indoctrination.
There are flabby brained local American officials who try desperately either out of ignorance, Dhimmitude, or treachery, to counter any so called Islamophobia. Many of the new migrants feel they have the right, indeed the obligation, to harass, beat up, and rape non Muslim women, children and even men. Demands by the public for the effective dealing with such Islamic crimes are met with derision and/or incalcitrance by many local governing bodies. They cite the approved narrative—accusations of racism, Islamophobia, the benefit of resulting economic growth, bla bla bla. In reality, they are undoubtedly receiving financial compensation for housing refugees, and many local employers benefit from cheap factory labor. Most Americans do not buy the obviously choreographed song and dance.
There are a plethora of blogs on this issue, but one of the most informative and targeted is Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch, a treasure trove of information.
Prior to the influx of migrants resulting from the deftly engineered unrest in the Middle East, courtesy of the Muslim Brotherhood’s allies in certain Western Leaderships, there were Muslim communities in the West that were largely peaceful, taxpaying citizens, and barely noticeable to the non-Muslim population. The present migrants are of an entirely different breed. Many are radicalized, openly hostile, threatening, and refuse to assimilate into their host nations’ way of life. They bring chaos and blatantly declare their intention to eventually seek cultural conquest of the native populations. They are devouring their hosts piece by piece. Now many nations which accepted large numbers of these de facto invaders, are on the edge of the cliff. Some appear to have fallen over, courtesy of their ineffective and/or treacherous leadership.
The following post discusses Sweden, whose overtaxed law enforcement  has sounded the clarion and are openly acknowledging what has been the case all along, they need help. The police seem to get it, but the political leadership remains befuddled over the rise of Islamic extremism and chooses to remain at sea over the entire issue. Are they being threatened, blackmailed, or acting as NWO agents seeking the destruction of their own nation in the name of “World Peace” and “equality” for all.

Sweden Faces The Abyss; National Police Head Begs For Help
July 21, 2017 JoshuaPundit

Sweden’s National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson, recently spoke on national television and shocked his fellow Swedes by pleading for assistance. “Help us, help us!,” he said, while warning that Swedish police forces no longer can uphold the law and therefore must ask all “good powers” in the country to support them. Sweden faces the abyss of lawlessness and perhaps even a defacto civil war.
Commissioner Eliasson’s remarks reflect a shocking change for the worse in what used to be one of Europe’s most peaceful and law abiding countries.
A leaked report concluded that the number of “no-go zones”) in Sweden now totals 61, up from 55 in just one year’s time. This increase represents not only the total number, but also the geographical size of these areas. The Swedish authorities themselves refer to these areas as utenforskap, which roughly translates as ‘excluded areas.’ What it amounts to is that Muslim gangs are carving out territory for themselves where they’re the ones in control, not the Swedish authorities.
Police chief Lars Alversjø says that, “There is lawlessness in parts of Stockholm now.” He also said, “The legal system, which is a pillar in every democratic society, is collapsing in Sweden.”


One interesting sign of this is a shocking rise of female genital mutilation (FGM), unheard of in Sweden until recently. A new report partly written by SVT, the Swedish state media, reported that at least 150,000 women in Sweden have experienced genital mutilation. This procedure can involve partial or complete removal of the clitoris (i.e., clitoridectomy, clitorectomy or infibulation) plus excision of the labia as well. All too often, this operation is performed on pre teen girls as young as 4 or 5 years old by people who are not licensed medial practitioners in unsterile conditions, and without anesthesia. The actual numbers of women living in Sweden who have experienced FGM may be far higher.
In 2015, there was a report that something like “only” 38,000 women had experienced genital mutilation. The new report shows how this has skyrocketed, even though it is illegal in Sweden.
Sexual assaults have increased as well. New data from Sweden’s national bureau for statistics, BRÅ says that 3,430 rapes was reported the first six months of 2017, up 14 percent compared to the previous half-year. In all, 9,680 sexual crimes was committed from January to June. According to a BRÅ report from 2013,only 23 percent of sexual crimes in Sweden are reported, which means that we can extrapolate the real number of sexual crimes the last six months in Sweden amounts to around 42,000.

According to statistics,92 percent of all severe rapes (violent rapes) are committed by migrants and refugees. 100 percent of all attack rapes (where victim and attacker had no previous contact) are committed by that same group. The countries of origin for the refugees who committed those rapes, in order of the number of perpetrators are Afghanistan, Somalia, Eritrea, Syria, Gambia, Iran, Palestine, and Kosovo. Migrants and refugees from Afghanistan are79 times more likely to commit rape than Swedes.
Another indication of how badly things are going are the efforts by Sweden’s Left wing government to hide them. Being critical of Islam, the Swedish government’s refugee policies or how individual members of the government are handling this crisis can get you a hefty fine, or in some cases even a jail sentence…or both.
But things are progressing to the point where it is getting harder and harder to hide what’s going on.
Magnus Ranstorp is a researcher into terrorism and radicalization at the Swedish National Defense College. Writing about the current situation in Sweden, he noted, “In the worst areas, extremists have taken over. The whole sense of justice and peace are threatened by the fact that the police is breaking down and it’s only getting worse. Sweden is in a disastrous situation”
2011 recipient of Sweden’s Order of the Seraphim medal, Johan Patrik Engellau, a research expert regarding destabilized countries, has been working with organizations such as the UN and others that operate in crisis areas.His take oin this is interesting as well, especially in view of thinking of Sweden as a ‘crisis area.’
“I’m afraid it is the end for the well-organized, decent, and egalitarian Sweden we have known up to now. Personally, I would not be surprised if a form of civil war occurs. In some places, the civil war has probably already begun.”
READ Sweden’s Clueless Government Puzzled Over ‘Rise In Islamic Extremism’
“The government does not seem to understand that it has lost control. There is a point where you can no longer stop a situation’s development. I do not know if Sweden has reached this point when it comes to the consequences of immigration, but I fear we are drawing close. If we right here and now take and clear and powerful action – including stopping immigration and the political promotion of multiculturalism – we might with some difficulty be able to save Sweden.”
Difficulty might just be the word for it. Sweden’s entire regular military consists of under 10,000 men in all branches of service, army, air force and navy. They have perhaps as many as reserves. The Hemvärnet, a sort of part time home guard has perhaps another 14,000.
There ar4e questions, even from within Sweden as to whether that’s enough military to defend Sweden, especially from a homeland insurrection. Lt. Col. Johan Wiktorin (ret.), a leading Swedish security consultant has been quite vocal about saying that Sweden’s military is “simply too small to defend its territory.” And remember, while Col. Wiktorin is thinking in terms of Russia, what we’re talking about here is controlling an area of 170,000 square miles in a conflict that would include urban warfare, only using Sweden’s land forces. And it’s also worth remembering that this kind of conflict is one in which a number of Sweden’s ‘guests’ have experience in places like Syria and Iraq.
So Sweden faces the abyss, whether its government wants to acknowledge it or not. What happens next? We’ll see.
Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com and other publications.

Source: WOW Magazine

Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.

Or, as the narrator puts it, he’s “a brilliant talker, and when he was arguing some difficult point he had a way of skipping from side to side and whisking his tail which was somehow very persuasive. The others said of Squealer that he could turn black into white” (2.2). He’s the one-pig PR outfit of Napoleon’s regime, with a quick mind, nimble tongue, and absolutely no morals whatsoever.

Do the characteristics of the above minister of truth remind the reader of anyone or any organization in particular?
No two ways about it, the leftist idea of a “utopia” is a place called Animal Farm where all are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
And now the New York Times is calling for a de facto Ministry Of Truth to muzzle Conservative speakers on the basis that they incite hate. Conservatives and their thoughts must be banned because they are a threat to freedom of speech. All speech and thoughts must now support the narrative in order to be heard.
The entire concept leaves rational thinking people wondering if they have gone through the looking glass or stumbled into an alternative Orwellian universe.
The following perversity must be challenged, lest we fall into the abyss of a dystopian world of newsspeak, groupthink, and doublethink.

New York Times Makes Stunning Call for Conservative Censorship 07/18/2017 / By admin
Psychology Professor Lisa Feldman Barrett had a question for New York Times readers on Sunday, and you can probably already imagine what her answer was, given the outlet. “When is Speech Violence?” Barrett asked, and her answer was that it is essentially a form of violence when words have a deteriorating effect on a person’s health and their way of life. As you might have guessed, she concludes that such effects are manifest in the speeches given by controversial conservative speakers – many of whom have been banned from college campuses in recent months.

“That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school,” she writes. “He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.”

Scientifically speaking! Which means that Barrett searched high and low to find studies that prove that speech can have an effect on the mental and physical health of minorities, perhaps overlooking that this can only be true when said minorities ALLOW it to have such an effect. And certainly overlooking the fact that there is no study on the planet that proves that the specific speeches of Milo Yiannopoulos or Ann Coulter have ever shortened the lives of any of their listeners. Although this may become true in time – not because of their words, but because the country is waiting breathlessly for movements like AntiFa to move past lighting campuses on fire and onto simply shooting those with whom they disagree. The ones who die are unlikely to be the fragile minorities Barrett is so desperate to protect, of course.
But this is an argument that’s growing more and more common on the left. It lies at the core of their most ridiculous needs: Safe spaces, trigger warnings, police alerts that ignore the race of the perpetrator, and so on. They equate speech with violence, which gives them a special vehicle with which they can navigate around that pesky First Amendment and use censorship as a weapon. And in all of this, of course, they are gladly willing to ignore the very real and very loud calls for violence on the left. If they give them any attention at all, they treat them as bafflingly rare exceptions to the rule – miscreants barely worth noticing.

Eventually, this will move beyond campus policies and into the halls of Congress and into the realm of the Supreme Court. At that point, our country will have to decide if we would rather put up with a bit of “abusive” speech in the name of freedom or if we would rather enact hate speech codes, the likes of which are curtailing right-wing rhetoric in Europe and Canada.

Let’s hope we make the right choice, because there won’t come a second chance.

Source: Total Conservative

Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.

The replacement of Europeans by non-European migrants was cooked up by an anti-Western UN 17 years ago.
Apparently, the declining birthrate of Europe is being used as an excellent cover for encouraging an increase in immigration so as to reverse Europe’s decline due to a low birth rate. However the refugee crisis resulting from  the engineered unrest in the middle East has provided a perfect opportunity for a de facto hijrah into a very specifically targeted Europe, the U.S. and  economically successful Japan and South Korea. The document did conclude that it would not help America since it already had extensive immigration. Hmmmm, presently, that does not seem to be keeping keep it immune from being pressured into accepting its “fair quota” of refugees.
It is utterly fascinating how non-communist and/or Western nations seem to be the target of a gradual non-military genocide as well as a cloaked confiscation of their wealth.
Obviously, the globalist elites have the perfect storm in which to achieve their dream of a one world government, or so they think. The values, inquiring minds, logic, and free thinking thought processes of Western Civilization must be eliminated in order to maintain control over a more compliant populace, which will eventually be living in a “Hunger Games” scenario. Mass migration is the perfect tool to bring the West to its knees and to eventually eliminate its culture.
The success of the elites’ nefarious plot remains to be seen. Does the West have the will to survive and fight back for its own future?

The following excerpts from the article are not in order but pulled to emphasize just a few cogent and more frightening points.

Plot to replace Europeans with refugees exposed  
U.N. document reveals 2000 plan to push massive migration
by Liam Clancy
From Trump’s speech in Poland:
“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost?” Trump asked. Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”
Trump then emphasized: “We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive.”…
…In 2007, at the fourth World Congress of Families, attended by 3,300 lawmakers and activists from 75 nations, Poland’s vice premier, Roman Giertych, warned of a coming “demographic winter.”
Returning to the centrality of marriage and families is the only way to avoid civilizational disaster, he insisted, declaring the family as “the hope for Poland, the hope for Europe, the hope for the entire world.”
“Without the family, there is no nation, there is no continent, there is no civilization, there is nothing,” he said.… (emphasis mine)
Just eight months before the congress, Mark Steyn, in his book “America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It,” warned that amid the shrinking of the European family, one of the fastest demographic evolutions in history already was making traditional views of European culture outdated.
He predicted Europe “will be semi-Islamic in its politico-culture character within a generation.”
While it takes a fertility rate of at least 2.1 children per woman for a nation to replenish itself, countries once known for big families, such as Greece and Spain, had fertility rates of 1.2 and 1.1 respectively at the time. The current rate in Greece may be as low as 1.1. Italy’s fertility rate is 1.4, while the country’s Muslim population has grown from about 2,000 in 1970 to 2 million today.
By 2050, Steyn wrote in September 2006, 60 percent of Italians, for example, will have no brothers, no sisters, cousins, no aunts, no uncles…
….The document – “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Aging Populations?” – details the plunging birthrates across Europe and identifies a solution: mass immigration.

The 17-year-old document contended mass immigration was necessary to replace the aging populations of developed countries. Without the migration of populations from the developing world, it reasons, economies will suffer because of labor shortages and falling tax revenues.
“Therefore, among the demographic variables, only international migration could be instrumental in addressing population decline and population aging in the short to medium term,” the report concludes.
The report specifically targets the U.S., Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Russia as prime candidates for replacement migration. It is not an obscure study, written and then ignored, but a founding piece of the pro-migration agenda pushed by the United Nations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and open-borders advocates.
“Following the publication of the draft of this study, the Population Division of the United Nations organized an Expert Group Meeting on ‘Policy Responses to Population Aging and Population Decline’ from 16 to 18 October 2000, at United Nations Headquarters in New York,” the report notes.
“Replacement migration was one among a number of possible policy responses that were considered.”….
…Not long after its birth, the U.N. came to be dominated by delegates, diplomats and staff among whose operative principles was that the West was guilty of historic crimes against humanity, and that justice demanded the endless transfer of the West’s illicitly acquired wealth to a Third World it had oppressed,” said Buchanan, a senior adviser to U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan and a former presidential candidate.
“Resentment, envy and hatred of the West among intellectual circles at Turtle Bay (the U.N.) – often echoed within the West itself – needs to be resisted like a disease, if the West is to remain the Great Civilization it has been,” he told WND.
Former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes told WND he views the “replacement migration” plot as “a decisive existential threat.”… (emphasis mine)
…Only 2.65 percent of migrants who crossed the Mediterranean to Italy in 2016 were deemed refugees, according to a U.N. report. Out of 181,436 migrants, a mere 4,808 were granted asylum in Italy.
The same U.N. report notes that 90,334 of the migrants to Europe did not even request asylum. Instead, they entered into the black market economy immediately.
Many E.U. officials are no longer denying that fact, with one official claiming last month, “In most of the cases, and that is actually the case on the central Mediterranean route, we’re talking clearly and manifestly about economic migrants.”
European Council President Donald Tusk agrees with the assessment, concluding the current policy toward illegal immigration is “not enough.”
Some politicians in Europe are calling for a strict crackdown on illegal immigration, placing the blame for mass migration on NGOs as well as the complicity of the European Union….
…“Muslim believers know very well that their birthrate is such that today, they call it … the Great Replacement, they tell you in a very calm, very positive way that, ‘one day all this, it will be ours,’” said Ravel.
Ravel and other critics on the right provide as further evidence of an engineered “Great Replacement,” the propensity of left-wing media and politicians to decry childbirth, promote abortion and simultaneously declare that migration is needed to raise birthrates, as evidenced in the following screenshots….”
A paper by European Union representative Constantinos Fotakis concluded that “replacement migration” would be beneficial for the entire E.U.: “There is a growing awareness that restrictive immigration policies of the past 25 years are no longer relevant to the economic and demographic situation in which the Union now finds itself. Some European policy makers think that it is now the appropriate moment to review the longer term needs for the EU as a whole, to estimate how far these can be met from existing resources and to define a policy for the admission of 3rd country nationals to fill those gaps which are identified.”
French official Georges P. Tapinos expressed support for mass migration as a humanitarian consideration. Interestingly, the recent massive wave of “refugees” was justified almost purely on the basis of humanitarianism.

Go Here for the entire article, and screen shots. It is long, very informative, disturbing, and worth the time it takes to read.

The actual UN document and links to its subsections is here

Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.

Decreed by the Government, no less!
Real ‘refugees’? White South Africans facing genocide
Puma ByDesign Race Relations, Wall of Shame, World

As not reported by the Communist media complex because they could care less, the victims are White South Africans, mostly farmers and as the world is pretends not to notice, White genocide is taking place in South Africa. The crimes are so horrific, the cries of the victims are so loud and blood curdling, HOW can world leaders not hear them? White South Africans are suffering. The families of White South Africans are being ripped apart and their livelihoods stolen as they are run off their land.
White South Africans cannot sleep at night for fear that they will be raped and slaughtered in their beds.
White South Africans are dying horrible deaths. They are the refugees that no one cares to discuss.
I often refer to the war against the Boer as a gift from Nelson Mandela. Mandela was a Marxist ideologue whose policies (if you could call it that) failed and were devastating to those who did not fall in line and to the White South African.
From  WND by Liam Clancy
Since the 1990s, between 2,000 and 4,000 farmers have been murdered.


White South African farmers are several times more likely to be killed than South African police officers or even American soldiers serving in Iraq.
“Often, they only count the farmer and not his wife and children that were also attacked or murdered,” South African missionary Charl Van Wyk told WND in an interview.
The omission is intentional “manipulation” of the data by the South African government, and such subterfuge makes it impossible to know the true extent of the attacks on white South African farmers, he said.
The sheer brutality of the murders cannot be overstated. Farmers are often tortured before being killed. One white South African woman was tied up, stabbed and burned with a blowtorch.
Other reports of the torture of white farmers include rape and attacks with power drills, boiling water and hot irons[…]
More
WARNING: RAW, GRAPHIC IMAGES

Sources: WOW magazine, Watcher Of Weasels/
WND

Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.

Trump ‘shocking, vulgar and right’ – cat’s out of bag
Tucker Carlson’s assessment a devastating indictment of ‘Conservatism, Inc.’
by Liam Clancy

WASHINGTON – In a prescient article written during President Trump’s campaign, then-Daily Caller editor Tucker Carlson declared that candidate Trump was “shocking, vulgar and right.”

Carlson placed the blame for the rise of the outsider squarely at the feet of the established conservative movement, often called ‘Conservatism Inc.”

That group, he suggested, created the conditions that led to Trump’s unexpected popularity.

Trump “exists because you failed,” Carlson declared to Conservatism Inc., blasting the huge network of nonprofits and organizations surrounding Washington for a complete lack of tangible success in recent decades.

“Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington,” Carlson wrote. “Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly.”

“Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising,” Carlson continued.

The United States of America is on the brink of total dissolution. And the conservative think tanks and foundations in Washington, D.C. are just another part of the problem. It’s time to charge the cockpit before it’s too late. It’s time for revolution. Learn the real story behind the intellectual and political movement which stunned the dishonest media – and put Donald J. Trump in the White House. THE blockbuster of 2017:

“Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you’d have to consider it wasted.”

Carlson further faulted the intellectuals and journalists who presumed to define conservatism for essentially shaming their own grassroots supporters for backing Trump.

“Let that sink in,” Carlson wrote. “Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They’re the ones who’ve been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they’re telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don’t, they’re liberal.”

Chris Buskirk, author of “American Greatness: How Conservatism Inc. Missed The 2016 Election & What The D.C. Establishment Needs To Learn,” recognized the same problems with Conservatism Inc. as Carlson did, and is now trying to create a grassroots conservative movement that frees conservatism from the Beltway insiders.

“When Tucker Carlson wrote his now famous essay back in January of 2016, it was really an indictment of what we call ‘Conservatism Inc,’” Buskirk told WND in an exclusive interview.

“[Tucker] talked about the failure of the nonprofit establishment in Washington, D.C., which by our estimation is about a $500 million a year operation,” Buskirk stated, providing a real figure to back up Carlson’s assumption on the wastefulness of Conservatism Inc.’s spending habits.

“And what do we get for that money? We haven’t gotten much of anything,” Buskirk added, echoing Carlson. “We got Barack Obama for eight years, we got George W. Bush for eight years.”

“Can anybody say that after sixteen years of Bush-Obama that this country is better off or worse off? Is it more conservative or less conservative?”

Anyone who honestly assesses that question, according to Buskirk, would reach the conclusion that Conservatism Inc. has failed to provide any real victories for the conservative movement.

“We haven’t gotten anything from that money,” Buskirk concluded

Conservatism Inc. has become “this insular group that benefits significantly from all these donations, but has just ceased to be effective.” (emphasis mine)

The United States of America is on the brink of total dissolution. And the conservative think tanks and foundations in Washington, D.C., are just another part of the problem. It’s time to charge the cockpit before it’s too late. It’s time for revolution. Learn the real story behind the intellectual and political movement which stunned the dishonest media – and put Donald J. Trump in the White House.

THE blockbuster of 2017: “American Greatness: How Conservatism Inc. Missed The 2016 Election & What The D.C. Establishment Needs To Learn” by Chris Buskirk and Seth Leibsohn, available now in the WND Superstore.

“Conservatives like to talk about free markets and creative destruction. Well a little creative destruction needs to come to the Beltway establishment,” Buskirk believes.

“We want to see a renaissance in the conservative movement. We’re hoping to spark a conservative movement that is based in America, not inside of Washington, D.C.”

This new conservative movement would be based on the core issues championed by Trump, namely a pro-citizen immigration policy, pro-worker trade policy, and “America First” foreign policy.

Buskirk believes that this type of movement would celebrate “hopes, dreams, and principles of the American people,” rather than “a small group of people who are spending a ton of money inside the Beltway every year.”

Tucker Carlson’s article identified the problems within the conservative movement, but Buskirk has outlined the solution.

Source: World Net Daily 

Written three years ago and continues to be spot on:
The following post discusses the three major points with a clarity that will enlighten those who marvel at the hatred  and venom spewed against the opposition, none of which has any basis in reality. The enumeration and further discussion of these points are halfway through the post but preceded by cogent observation.

Reason #1: Utopianism You’re in their way
Reason #2: Fantasyland vs. Reality The WORLD is in their way
Reason #3: Preening Narcissism They are beautiful, so you must be ugly

 The Top Three Reasons Why Liberals Hate Conservatives

Posted: September 21, 2014 at 1:19 pm   /   by

“Conservatives see liberals as misguided; liberals see conservatives as evil.”
—Original source unknown

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, or a Republican? Have you ever been verbally assaulted by someone on the political left with a ferocity you didn’t quite understand? Have you seen it happen to friends and colleagues, or watched in horror as the media establishment does it to a public figure?
Of course you have. At some point or other, nearly everyone on the political right has witnessed or been the victim of an attack designed not to elucidate facts, but rather to paint him or her as a villain.
My attention was recently drawn to a typical such calumny from a Facebook exchange:

Republicans hate anything that isn’t white, wealthy, and christian at least in appearance. They hate the poor, women, and minorities. They hate science and don’t believe that the global warming we clearly are experiencing is man made. They hate any government programs that help the poor and minorities, and the (sic) particularly despise immigrants, particularly the illegal kind. They love programs that line the pockets of oil companies, mining companies, and are willing to export jobs with wild abandon.
They hate public education, and they despise public schools and the public school teachers and public university professors. And since the (sic) do not respect the market place of ideas, they hate tenure (that gives teachers academic freedom) because it prevents them from firing teachers who are Democrats and who might infect some student with their liberal ideas. They want insurance companies to make a maximum of profit, and are perfectly willing for the health insurance companies to kill people by refusing service to anyone that might cost them a buck more than the median expense. They don’t care about clean food because it might cost the food corporation a little money, and they don’t care about clean water because cleaning up the waste will cost their precious corporate persons a little money.

This is not a recitation of facts; it is a series of smears. It is the construction of a giant cartoonish super-villain, made of straw and woven together with calumny. The giant straw villain is then publicly burned, in a narcissistic orgy of self-adulation. Of course, the torches of the “best” people burn the brightest.
Another way of looking at it is this: It is the modern-day version of a witch trial. The charges are utterly farcical and cartoonish. “I saw her dancing with demons in the pale moonlight.” “She looked at me and I sneezed, and the next day, I had a terrible cold.” “She turned me into a newt.” But they are stated with great conviction and repeated incessantly, and they establish the unassailable collective will of which the accused has run afoul. The witch is made into the auslander, and the good people of the community show how “good” they are by shouting their accusations the loudest.
Either way, whether the wicker man or the witch, the effigy goes up in flames and the community is purged—for the moment—of its evil. Moral annulment now achieved, the villagers walk away feeling good about themselves. Feeling superior.
Facts are also unimportant in this perverse passion play. Like the slavering, semi-psychotic Facebook rant above, most such assaults aren’t a series of accusations backed up by facts, they are a series of character assassinations, most of which are contradicted by the facts.

The most salient example today is the charge that people of the right (conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers) oppose Obama out of pure racism—simply because he is black. Though this charge is easily refuted—by common sense, widespread evidence, and actual studies—it is repeated incessantly by the media, the left’s foot-soldiers . . . even the president himself.
When actual studies are done (as opposed to just restating what the leftist imagines to be so as if it were actual fact), we learn that real racism is distributed fairly evenly among the population without regard to political affiliation.  In 2008, a survey was done that showed similar numbers of Republicans (5.7) and Democrats (6.8) would not vote for a black presidential candidate. Such a question gives us one of the clearest possible tests of raw racism. A loaded question like, “Do you feel blacks receive too much welfare?” might confuse attitudes about race with attitudes about government welfare programs. But this gives us apples to apples: All things being equal, would you refuse to vote for someone solely because of race?
In the 2008 survey, Democrats were slightly (1.1%) more likely to show racist thinking than Republicans, though this is well within the margin of error. A similar study on senatorial candidates was far more damning to Democrats. Bottom line: there is little evidence that Republicans oppose Obama or any candidate on the basis of race to any greater degree than Democrats.
But this should be obvious based on other facts and indicators as well. Take Mia Love. If you are on the political left, you may not have heard of her, but she is a rising star on the right. She quotes Bastiat, she believes in core principles such as subsidiarity—she is dynamic, successful, and hits all the right notes. She is a black woman, and I have not met or heard of a single conservative, Republican, or tea partier who wouldn’t be delighted to support her. (Deep down, many of the left know this, which is why they have been so vicious to her.) I have worked alongside or come in contact with hundreds of activists and partisans on the political right over the last 15 years, and I cannot think of a single one who would not exult at a Mia Love victory. If she were elected president, I myself would do the happy dance on top of the tallest mountain in my area every November!
The reason is obvious: we agree ideologically. Race is unimportant. Barack Obama is, it can be fairly argued, further to the political left than any previous president. And people on the right oppose him so virulently for that very reason—not because of his race, but because of the huge ideological gulf that lies between. Imagine that.
The other painfully incessant canard is the notion that people on the right “hate the poor.” In fact, the evidence shows the opposite. Conservatives are more charitable than liberals by fairly significant margins, even when you adjust for a variety of factors. Rich, middle-class, and poor conservatives are all more charitable than their liberal counterparts.  It’s not that conservatives are wealthier overall, either—liberal households are 6% wealthier on average. (I bet you never heard that little fact on MSNBC.) It is also not that conservatives are more religious: new data indicate that secular conservatives give more than secular liberals. These conservatives are voluntarily helping the poor with their own money, in greater numbers than their liberal counterparts in every cohort. Conservatism is a greater predictor of charity.
Leftists (they hardly deserve the term “liberal”), by contrast, are more “charitable” with other people’s money. Leftist A votes for Politician B to take money (by force) from Taxpayer C to give it to Recipient D. A and D give more support and power to B, who continues to take more and more from C, in a perverse and ever-increasing form of economic bondage. Then, A, B, and D get together and say that C hates the poor. Lather, rinse, repeat.

But we are getting dragged into the weeds here. We could go on and on refuting fact after fact, but the facts are unimportant. The leftist is creating a narrative. As a marketing guru will tell you, Facts tell, but stories sell. It’s a lesson the leftist has learned well.
Even more disturbing, in recent years, this method of “argumentation” has increasingly become the first tool pulled out of the toolbox. No longer does the leftist feel as compelled to make real arguments. All he needs to do now is shout “Racist!” or “War on Women!” and his job is done. He walks away feeling smugly satisfied of his own politically correct superiority, and the untrained observer is left addled at best, and possibly even swayed by the narrative.
So why they are so vicious?  Why do people who self-describe as “compassionate” direct such vitriolic hate and assaults at their ideological opponents? How they can justify painting you as such a monster?
Simple: To them, you are a monster. You must be.

Reason #1: Utopianism
You’re in their way

Strip everything away, and the fundamental trait of all leftists is this: They believe that through the state, they can build paradise on earth. They believe that with enough tinkering, coercion, and rule by “experts,” they can eliminate all hard choices and competing goods, perfect human nature, and bring all good things to all people.
To someone of the political right—defined by our belief in human freedom, private solutions, and individual sovereignty—this is just the modern re-telling of the age-old story: that some men should rule over other men. Ancient despotism, monarchy, fascism, totalitarianism, modern progressivism—they’re all just different flavors, and different degrees of application, of the same basic philosophy. But the person on the left does not see it that way. He wants perfection. He believes it is possible. And by gum, he’s going to get it.
This utopian thinking quickly leads to an unavoidable conclusion, echoed from the French Revolution to Lenin and Stalin to Mao to the Progressives of the modern era: “On ne fait pas d’omelet sans casser des oeufs.” (You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.) To the utopian statist, “process costs” are entirely acceptable. They are building paradise, after all.
That’s why you see so much more toleration by the left’s rank and file of corruption and bad behavior by their leaders. What’s a little lying here, a little corruption there? They are building paradise. What’s a little cheating in the face of all they intend to accomplish?
That is also why you see such a prevalence of cult-of-personality adulation for strong leaders. Strong leaders resolve contradictions and sweep away the opposition. Strong leaders have the will to get the job done. Strong leaders get the trains running on time. Next stop, paradise.
But most importantly . . . these utopians—both the leaders and the rank and file—are so convinced of the nobility of their intentions that they believe that anyone who stands in their way must, by definition, have evil intentions. After all, who but a monster would stand in the way of paradise? And what consideration do monsters deserve? Why none at all, of course—they’re monsters.
That is why they do not simply disagree with you. That is why they calumniate you and attribute the worst motives to you. That is why they hate you.

Reason #2: Fantasyland vs. Reality
The WORLD is in their way

The world refuses to conform to their utopian vision. The world isn’t the neat and tidy place they want it to be. They still hold onto the childlike belief that there can be goods with no tradeoffs, and this world of endless tradeoffs proves them wrong every day, mocking their childishness in the process. That makes them very angry.
Someone once said, “Conservatives believe what they see; liberals see what they believe.” Leftists hate you for the fact that you see the world as it is, rather than as it should be. You accept the facts of reality as they truly are, and you try to make the best of it. They believe that they can make reality conform to their vision of it. (That this effort always requires massive application of force against other human beings doesn’t bother them. It’s just another process cost.)
Your acceptance of reality as it is is pedestrian and troglodytic. Their vision of how reality should be makes them noble and romantic. They hate you for not living in the same fantasy land that they do. They hate you for recognizing that life is filled with tradeoffs. They don’t see the tradeoffs, so when you point them out, it’s as if you are the one that is making the tradeoff exist. La-La-La . . . I can’t hear you! Stop making bad things happen.
Your acceptance of reality makes them so angry, in fact, that they have convinced themselves that you must be suffering from some sort of psychological malady. Over the last century, dozens of self-reinforcing  junk-science books and studies have been published labeling “conservatism” (once called “classical liberalism”) as a mental disorder. Like the mental patient permanently lost in a psychotic world of his own creation . . . he’s normal, it’s the rest of you who are nuts.

Reason #3: Preening Narcissism
They are beautiful, so you must be ugly

The ideas of the political left produce failure at best and misery, oppression, and democide at worst. In spite of this, I had long clung to the belief that at least people on the political left “mean well.”
But do they? Or do they simply want to feel as though they mean well?
Author Robert Bidinotto asks (and answers) the same question:

Have decades upon decades of liberal policy failures deterred liberals from being liberals? Have the trillions of dollars blown on welfare-state programs since the “New Deal” and the “War on Poverty” made a damned bit of difference in curing poverty? And has that failure convinced “progressives” that there is something fundamentally wrong in their worldview and approach? Have the horrendous historical consequences of appeasement policies stopped today’s politicians from appeasing international thugs and terrorists? No?
Then why does anyone assume that liberals gauge the value of their worldview by the standard of its PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES?
Practical consequences are ALWAYS trumped by the advancement and protection of one’s core Narrative: the fairy tale that gives one’s life meaning, coherence, and moral justification. [ . . . ]
Doing that makes them feel good about themselves. And they would far rather feel good about themselves than actually achieve any of their stated practical objectives. It’s not about the objectives at all. It’s about THEM.

John Hawkins is just as unequivocal:

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it’s designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn’t work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they’re “protecting the environment” even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it’s not what a program does in the real world; it’s about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

If this is true, then for many, utopianism isn’t about what they think they can achieve, it’s about their own self-image.
So is it true?
The persistence of this vision in the face of centuries of evidence would seem to indicate that it may be. We know that maximizing human freedom is more moral and produces better results—the last two centuries have made that clear. And on the flip side, we know that maximizing government at the expense of the individual produces a parade of horribles. And yet, again and again, we are told that it simply wasn’t done correctly before, or by the right people.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?
Why you are, my dear—you are so compassionate and fair and noble in every way.
The leftist looks at herself in the mirror and sees that she is one of those “right people,” because that is how she wants to see herself.
And if she is so beautiful and noble and fair . . . then how ugly you must be for standing in her way.

The leftist—the utopian, the statist—sees himself as on noble quest. He is the embodiment of everything good, simply because that is how he sees himself. How he wants to see himself. In order to maintain this self-image, he must make you the embodiment of everything horrible. He must make you ugly.
To statists, you are just another process cost. Their willingness to accept process costs on the road to their utopia is limited only by national context. In the United States, an exceptional nation where we still have some rule of law, they will certainly calumniate you, and they may decide to harm your finances, career, or reputation. In less exceptional countries where there is less rule of law, the harm is often to people’s freedom or even their very lives, as more than 100 million poor souls discovered in the 20th century.
The typical leftist in America, ignorant of his own philosophical pedigree, will protest this characterization. Do not let their protestations sway you. The degree to which they will treat you—the monster standing in the way of their utopia—as a disposable process cost is limited only by the degree of power they have. For your own safety, do not let them get more.
You are in the way of the utopia they are trying to create. You are in the way of the power they need to do it.
You. Are. In. Their. Way.
mob, wicker man, effigy, mob mentality
“The conservative “thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the liberal ideologue is merciless.”

Western Free Press 
Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.