Conspiracy Theories, continued

Roger Stone, in his new book, “The Making of the President 2016” defines conspiracy theories very well:

“Conspiracy Theorist” is what they call you when you refuse to accept the conventional or media-backed narrative of any particular event.


We are a country of intelligent beings – how is it that we so easily buy into this ruse?  I think that one simple component is that seeking out truth takes time and effort, while accepting status quo takes literally zero effort. I believe it was time that kept me from investigating on my own – but my gut still told me something is wrong. I believe much of our country has that gut feeling, and that group is now waking up.

To get Roger Stone’s book, visit this link.

Have a blessed day!


Conspiracy Theories

A term thrown around a lot lately is “Conspiracy Theory.” This literally refers to corruption inside organizations (like governments) – but it has become more of a way to label people as paranoid, and distrusting of the government.

Well friends, please adjust your connotation of Conspiracy Theory, because they are real, they do exist, and it happens regularly in our government. just released “Vault7” which is a very large set of documents exposing huge corruption in our CIA, including – get this – the ability for the CIA to stage cyber attacks against organizations, and make it look like the attack came from another country. So essentially, it takes the wind out of these accusations against Donald Trump and the whole “ties to the Russians” conversation.

These documents were leaked via unidentified patriots inside the CIA who are uncomfortable with the lack of accountability that exists within powerful “deep state” divisions of our own government. This information will finally cause “cleaning house” to occur within these organizations, as it all comes publicly to light.

Bottom line, if you were thinking that conspiracy theories are simply for paranoid people, it’s time to really rethink your stance.

Info on the release from Wikileaks:

“Hate” Speech / Crime


Today’s post will be one of many commentaries that I will make on  site – about words that are common vernacular in our political and legal scene. In some cases, I’ll have more formal definitions, and in most cases, I’ll “interpret” how the word or phrase is “spun” to serve a political purpose (as I see it.) Today’s term comes to mind as Google (and other related sister companies) have introduced AI (Artificial Intelligence) programming to detect posts that are “toxic” and expunge them from the ‘net.

On the surface, this all sounds great, right? Why wouldn’t we want toxic, hateful speech removed from our view? Well, unfortunately, it’s a very subjective argument – and vague definitions don’t help. It starts with the definition of toxic – what compromises toxicity? That can vary from person to person. One of the awesome facets of free speech is that we have the free will to choose to NOT read it! It’s a personal choice. If we leave that choice up to bureaucrats and technocracy, we are effectively giving those entities the right to “filter” what we see. And since we know that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, we have little assurance that those powers won’t be used to help deliver to us the type of information that those entities wish us to believe (and it’s been noted that they are doing it now.) I personally would much rather read something, decide that it’s toxic to me of my own free will, and simply stop reading it, than trusting another organization to decide truth for me. If you’ve ever read George Orwells’ “1984” – you know that this type of power can easily morph into a “Ministry of Truth” – which can be very scary (and destroys our freedom of speech rights.) USSR tried this during the cold war with it’s TASS news agency. China does it now with it’s news (along with internet censorship – see where this can go?)

If we do not vet out truth on our own, we surrender our own knowledge of history and current events to those that control information.

But here’s a question – Do we need to censor “hate” speech? I mean, we can stop reading it at any time, right? Does it really mean that someone is saying something “hateful” or is it simply a classification for when we don’t agree with someone’s thinking? I submit to you that it’s more often the latter – and rather than providing protection of the First Amendment, it instead creates a strange legality where those in power can manipulate what is seen, heard, and said, by those media outlets that they control. And since Google has “control” over a HUGE chunk of the internet, by means of which is the majority of the (free) world’s web browser start page – they become our first filter. I’ve never been a huge Google fan of late – simply because they have the ability to control so much of information now, that very few human beings have the ability to remain un-corrupt with that amount of power.

You see, more and more it’s becoming clear to me that the main news outlets (Mainstream Media or MSM) are in fact corporations – and these corporations have ties to very powerful, very wealthy individuals who are  un-elected, and NOT functioning with our best interests at heart, but instead have their own, very different and incompatible agenda with our own views of freedom. They then use their news corporations to further their own cause. This agenda is often referred to as “globalism” – and I’ll write more about it in the future.


So how do we define Hate Speech? And what is a Hate Crime? To me, it is a word used by media outlets that sounds “terrible” and without further thought, sounds like something we should just do away with altogether. Lawmakers have even written laws defining “Hate Crimes” – and that’s another complete topic of discussion that we can have… Do we need to define a “hate” crime as something different from any other crime that is a threat to our liberties? Did the four in Chicago who held the disabled man hostage for a few days need to have energy spent to define whether this is a “hate” crime? Seems to me holding someone hostage and torturing them is already defined fairly well as a crime, punishable by law.

So it’s up to you to form an opinion – but as with so much of the common language these days, you do need to spend a little bit of time to root out what is meant by the term – so many of these terms are thrown around, like “Assault Weapon” – done to make you think that it’s a more evil kind of weapon – and the words work well to that end. But the facts don’t pan out. Statistically. In fact, those of us 2nd Amendment defenders often call “Assault Weapons” laws “Ugly Gun” laws  as often the characteristics that define them are more physical than a measure of their lethality. But again, it feels good.. Why wouldn’t we want to ban an assault weapon? Again, do your research and grab an accurate definition. Remember that “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” – and the facts often to not make themselves readily visible (do be careful – there are lots of “studies” that paint the picture both ways on many topics – so check sources!)

And if you come across hateful commentary, remember that you are fully capable of NOT reading any further. You are also free to create a rebuttal to what you’ve read, should you feel so inclined. And therein lies some of the power of the first amendment to our Constitution, as it relates to free speech.

Have an awesome day filled with love, not hate!