Everything we see in the news daily maintains incredible consistency - as we head towards a world-totalitarian government...Exactly what we will see during the Tribulation and headed by a central figure. Additionally, in most cases we see George Soros somewhere lurking behind the events:






“Terrorism” is nothing new to George Soros, it just isn’t called “terrorism” when he does it. As an example of Soros terrorism, now would be a good time to mention that in addition to financing people to riot at the places mentioned above, Soros and Hillary Clinton were actually the ones behind all the anti-Trump rallies, and the violence that came with them. It was later discovered after the media had spun its false narrative, that the protestors were being paid $16 per hour to show up and cause chaos. They didn't have a beef with Trump. They were paid to be there.

THE VERY DEFINITION OF TERRORISM IS DEFINED AS: "A Person Who Uses Terror In the Pursuit of a Political Aim"
This isn’t rocket science. Using violence, and threatening to carry out the “largest civil disobedience action of the century” if "Democracy Spring" doesn't get their way in the 2016 elections, is a textbook example of “using terror in the pursuit of a political aim.” If you doubt that that it should be called terror, might I suggest questioning some of the dead from previous Soros funded events, and see if they agree with me or you. Let me know how that goes.
As November keeps getting dangerously closer each day, if the new Soros group “Democracy Spring,” and Black Lives Matter continue down the road they are on now, given the amount of carnage we saw in places like Ferguson and Baltimore, it’s VERY easy to see how Obama and the White House might be “forced” to declare a state of Martial Law, whether they “want” to or not, and be forced to suspend the elections. It's only through peoples' OWN ignorance of ALL the facts, do many people seem to think Martial Law is a far fetched possibility. Quite the opposite! I submit to you, it’s considerably more far fetched to see the country somehow make it through the entire election process WITHOUT having Martial Law Declared. Based on the stories below, I’m not alone in that assessment:

SOROS’ ROLE IN ORCHESTRATING THE MUSLIM REFUGEE “CRISIS”
Don’t think Soros is limited to importing chaos into just  U.S. politics either. As the “front man” for the Bilderberg Group and the Illuminati, George Soros is very open publicly about his desire for one world government, and has even admitted to helping fund to facilitate the process.
In the video below, you’ll see that long before the Muslim refugee crisis got way out of hand, Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, was opposed to Muslim Refugees/migrants coming into Hungary. After taking matters into his own hands, in an email issued to Bloomberg Business, Soros took responsibility for starting the Muslim invasion of Europe by financing the beginning of the massive migrant wave. Soros claimed his foundation was “helping uphold European values,” while the Prime Minister’s actions in strengthening Hungary’s border “undermined those values.”
Referring to the Prime Minister, Soros later added, “His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle… Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle." The Prime Minister responded to Soros saying, “This invasion is driven, on the one hand, by people smugglers, and on the other by those activists who support everything that weakens the nation-state.”

George Soros has been a long time ally of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. His alleged ties to a terrorist act should not surprise anyone. Unbeknownst to so many Americans, Soros funds virtually all left wing/Communist uprisings, and is virtually always the money behind poetical agitators here in the United States. Sadly, because the mainstream media is so dishonest and so corrupt, the typical American voter has no idea that events the “presstitutes” report as “spontaneous, with no organization or funding” are normally quite the opposite. They are highly coordinated, and very well funded efforts, with Soros usually behind them.
If Americans are smart, they’ll take this information about Soros' alleged ties to a terrorist act, and combined with all of Hillary’s other shady dealings, they’ll be able to deduce there is no way that woman is fit for President. For anyone who just can’t seem to break away from supporting Hillary, might I suggest reading, Why Did Illuminated George Soros Liquidate 37% of His Stock to Buy Gold? (Video).
Recall up above I said that Soros’ nickname for years has been, “The Currency Killer,” right? With all you SHOULD know about the problems in the U.S. economy, why would Hillary be so closely associated with one of the richest men on earth (and a man nicknamed “The Currency Killer”), who also just happened to bet for the whole world to see, that the U.S. Dollar is is about to collapse?







Ron Wyden, a Senator from Oregon, has been one of the most influential and significant champions of Americans’ embattled 4th Amendment rights in the digital age. Recall that it was Sen. Wyden who caught Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, lying under oath about government surveillance of U.S. citizens.
Mr. Wyden continues to be a courageous voice for the public when it comes to pushing back against Big Brother spying. His latest post at Medium is a perfect example.


Shaking My Head

The government will dramatically expand surveillance powers unless Congress acts
Last month, at the request of the Department of Justice, the Courts approved changes to the obscure Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs search and seizure. By the nature of this obscure bureaucratic process, these rules become law unless Congress rejects the changes before December 1, 2016.

Today I, along with my colleagues Senators Paul from Kentucky, Baldwin from Wisconsin, and Daines and Tester from Montana, am introducing the Stopping Mass Hacking (SMH) Act (bill, summary), a bill to protect millions of law-abiding Americans from a massive expansion of government hacking and surveillance. Join the conversation with #SMHact.

What’s the problem here?

For law enforcement to conduct a remote electronic search, they generally need to plant malware in?—?i.e. hack?—?a device. These rule changes will allow the government to search millions of computers with the warrant of a single judge. To me, that’s clearly a policy change that’s outside the scope of an “administrative change,” and it is something that Congress should consider. An agency with the record of the Justice Department shouldn’t be able to wave its arms and grant itself entirely new powers.


The second part of the change to Rule 41 would give a magistrate judge the authority to issue a single warrant that would authorize the search of an unlimited number?—?potentially thousands or millions?—?of devices, located anywhere in the world. These changes would dramatically expand the government’s hacking and surveillance authority.The American public should understand that these changes won’t just affect criminals: computer security experts and civil liberties advocates say the amendments would also dramatically expand the government’s ability to hack the electronic devices of law-abiding Americans if their devices were affected by a computer attack. Devices will be subject to search if their owners were victims of a botnet attack?—?so the government will be treating victims of hacking the same way they treat the perpetrators.


These changes are a major policy shift that will impact Americans’ digital security, expand the government’s surveillance powers and pose serious Fourth Amendment questions. Part of the problem is the simple fact that both the American public and security experts know so little about how the government goes about hacking a computer to search it. If a victim’s Fourth Amendment rights are violated, it might not be readily apparent because of the highly technical nature of the methods used to execute the warrant.







The Miligram experiment, as it’s known, is hailed as a milestone in our understanding of how people’s ethics can drastically change when responsibility for their actions is deferred on to an authority figure, such as an ‘expert’ or a leader. Intrigued by the role of Nazi military personnel in concentration camps during WWII, Milgram wanted to know how much coercion people needed in order to willingly inflict harm on another person.

“He asked volunteers to deliver an electric shock to a stranger. Unbeknownst to the volunteers, there was no shock—and the people they were shocking were actors pretending to be terribly hurt, even feigning heart attacks. Milgram found that most people would keep delivering the shocks when ordered by a person in a lab coat, even when they believed that person was gravely injured. Only a tiny percentage of people refused.” [Source]

The suggested conclusion is that people are inherently unable to think for themselves when given a subordinate role in some authoritarian hierarchy, such as the role of the people in a state-controlled world.
The results have become accepted knowledge in our understanding of how ordinary people can inflict extraordinary harm on others, but discussion of this experiment rarely speaks to the fact that many people resisted the experiment, focusing instead on reinforcing the darker, more helpless side of human nature. Subsequent examination of the Milgram study, however, reveals a number of flaws both practical and ethical that pretty much discredit the entire experiment, yet this particular example is cited over and over again as fact about human nature, when it is anything but.
Building on the ideas set forth by Milgram, a recent study conducted at University College of London by neuroscientist Patrick Haggard and his colleagues was recently released and promoted with the headline ‘It’s Actually Easy to Force People to be Evil.”
This new approach to confirming the bias to follow orders looks at this aspect of behavior from the perspective of neuroscience, aiming to define the different physiological processes that occur, further distancing us from individuality, free will and human conscience.






25 Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors.” If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviants”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain critical reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows,” and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminality which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas that have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism.”
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can ensure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.






There are three ways for a person to obtain something of value from another person: receive it as a donation, steal it by force or fraud, or exchange for it. It’s not much of an oversimplification to say that the advance of civilization has hinged on its movement from the first two methods to the third. The right to exchange, and the right to promise as part of a future exchange—the right to contract—are now taken for granted, but those rights are delicate and a whole complex of rights, assumptions, and obligations are subsumed by them. Their intellectual foundations are being undermined as the equality of rights implicit in contract and exchange gives way to a regressive inequality of rights: servitude.
The essence of exchange is choice; it’s voluntary. Both parties have the choice of whether or not to transact, and neither will do so unless they subjectively value what they receive more than what they give up. That is not to say that there will be equality of resources, bargaining power, or negotiating skill between the parties, or that they will be equally happy with their bargain, only that both parties have the same choice to accept or reject the proposed transaction. Exchange embodies that equality of rights between parties, but not an equality of outcomes.
The concept of a social contract is a contradiction in terms. With whom does a society contract? An entity cannot contract with itself. The notion has come to mean acceptance by the governed of the government, whatever its form. However, individuals have no choice to opt out of the collective entity known as society, as they would any other voluntarily chosen entity they joined, and the social contract supposedly binds not just those who were part of the society when the contract was made, but future generations. Thus, the term social contract wrongly connotes voluntary choice of an institution whose establishment has always been the product of chance and force, and has no meaning at all for the unborn who will nevertheless be compelled to live under the government so established.

Nobody goes into government to refrain from exercising power. Governments ban certain contracts and exchanges, or dictate their terms in the name of regulation. They are humanity’s most rapacious and regressive institution; they arrogate to themselves the right to legally engage in theft. Outlawing or regulating certain exchanges furthers larceny as well; enforcement offers opportunities for extortion and accepting bribes.

So runs the sociopathic, psychopathic scam known as government. The productive are robbed and just enough is doled out to the beggars to keep them quiescent and voting correctly. The rest lines the pockets of the sociopaths and psychopaths, the “served.” This can be the only result when exchange is replaced with theft and begging as the basis of social and commercial interaction. Collectivist hostility to exchange stems not from its misattributed flaws, but from deep-rooted psychological hostility to a process that involves free choice and confers equally to both parties the option not to engage in it. Exchange presumes that individuals are capable of directing their own lives, and protecting the freedom to contract and exchange enshrines that autonomy. Freedom, exchange, and equality of rights under the law are inseparable.

As exchange dies, the nation founded in revolution and independence descends into docile servility. Equality of rights under the law, a difficult but not impossible goal, gives way to a deluded and malignant drive for equality of outcomes. Exchange, contract, and freedom are inconsistent with equality of outcome. In order for voluntary exchange to occur, both parties must have something to exchange, which implies both parties have produced something and either retained it or exchanged it for something else of value. Productive ability is not equally distributed. Nor is the ability to benefit from exchange; some are better at it than others.
Spurious promises of equal outcomes implicitly rely on begging, theft, and the coercive power of the sociopathic, psychopathic scam. There has never yet been a government in which the government, especially ones devoted to “equality,” did not become, in Orwell’s words, “more equal” than its begging and enslaved citizenry. Keep that in mind the next time you hear a blowhard bastard bloviating bromides about the beauty and nobility of “service.” You’re to be served... as the next course.









We are standing at the edge of a cliff in the middle of an ice age where government is trying to control the media, polls, rate agencies, you name it, all to try to manipulate society to serve their own goals. The bureaucracy today would easily start a war to retain power. That is what they do. We are the great unwashed and collateral damage is part of life for them. We can see a possible bright future if we can really reform government. But they will never surrender willingly. We have to crash and burn to reach the other side,
Everything from gold and oil to the Dow and the euro are all trying to alert us there is something brewing here as we stand at the edge in the middle of nowhere. It is time to wake up before it is too late. We have to see the world markets are all connected and screaming at us, but the majority only focus on one or two markets and never see the wildcard coming from the other side.