With the impeachment of President Trump currently going up in flames, I’ve had a number of people ask me what the point of the impeachment was. Hope your sitting down.

The Democrats know that they have no case and they know that they will lose.  They didn’t even bother to cite a crime or an otherwise impeachable offense in the charges that they filed with the Senate. However, this impeachment proceeding is not the objective. The objective is the next impeachment that they will file. Next, you say? Well, Maxine Waters has said that they are still investigating Trump. Why would they do that unless they were planning to bring additional charges? Nancy Pelosi, herself, has said that Trump is impeached “for life” which confirms that they are working on a second impeachment (or even a third, if necessary).  Here’s what this would look like.

The Democrats did not call certain witnesses during the House hearings that they thought could bolster their existing case against Trump (e.g. John Bolton).  Here’s why. Giving impeachment testimony before the House is strictly voluntary unless the House issues a subpoena to legally force them to appear and testify. However, the House never subpoenaed John Bolton, among others, because Bolton’s attorney threatened to fight any subpoena in court.  Further, President Trump would have claimed “executive privilege” if he we’re forced to, thus likely keeping Bolton from testifying. In any event, the Democrats knew that the courts was a losing battle.  

So, how do you get Bolton to testify if he is such a crucial witness? Here’s how. You start by filing a “sham” impeachment and forcing a trial in the Senate. You demand witnesses at the Senate trial and, voila, John Bolton will be forced to appear. During his testimony you are able to uncover other matters which were previously unknown.  Now, you know what new charges to investigate and what crimes to charge Trump with in the Second Impeachment, and you have the testimony you need to help win your case.

And you probably thought that Schiff and Company were total morons, didn’t you?

The New York Times endorsement for president in 2020 just came out and did they get it all wrong.  They went for Warren and Klobuchar.  The problem is that neither Warren or Klobuchar can win in 2020. 

The interesting thing about their endorsement is who they didn’t choose, Bernie Sanders.  Their rationale for not choosing Sanders was, in part, because he was uncompromising in his political positions.  

Translation: Under those circumstances, he can not be the “establishment” candidate. 

So, the two democratic anti-establishment candidates did not receive an endorsement; that is, Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard.  The Times also did not endorse Donald Trump, which was no surprise since they have not endorsed anyone other than a Democrat since 1956, but the reason given is illuminating. They cited his America First policies.

Translation: The establishment supports globalism over nationalism.

Politics is no longer about Democratic vs Republican or liberal vs conservative.  While there certainly is a lot of overlap, it’s now about globalism vs nationalism.  Globalism represents moving jobs abroad if it is advantageous to multi-national corporations and getting the country involved in endless wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, with Iran looming on the horizon).  

Translation: These are the goals of the Military Industrial Complex.

The establishment, and establishment rags like the New York Times, will not support an anti-establishment candidate.  All the political rhetoric is just that – rhetoric. The establishment doesn’t want to expose the fact that their loyalties are not to this country. They are globalists.  Bernie Sanders is too uncompromising so he can never be their candidate. That’s why they stole the Democratic nomination from him in 2016 and why they will work against his nomination for 2020.

Translation: Just read the book “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Takeover of the DNC” by Donna Brazile, the former head of the DNC.


The one thing missing in the New York Times endorsement was any discussion about why there was no person of color remaining on the Iowa debate stage. Candidates Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard and former candidate Kamala Harris have all said that the DNC rules are biased against persons of color. However, apparently this is not a serious issue within the party as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib did not endorse a person of color. Rather, they all endorsed Bernie Sanders. Apparently, ideology (in this case socialism) is the most important political issue to some.

Translation: Politics sure makes strange bedfellows. However, what we’re left with is mostly old, rich white men. Hillary anyone?

“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician.” – Hillary Clinton, on Bernie Sanders

Christian theologian Brian McLaren once said, “One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history – it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn church history.” So, let’s go back to the very beginning of Christianity to get a clearer picture of what actually took place.

Christianity, as a movement, can be traced back to the period immediately after The Resurrection. What would eventually morph into Christianity was practiced by what was then called the Jerusalem Church and was led by James, the brother of Jesus. The teachings of the Jerusalem Church were intended for Jews (on how to live their life according to the Torah). For example, Jesus and his disciples lived their life according to the Torah (Jewish law) because they were devout Jews.

Paul The Apostle was affiliated with the Jerusalem Church and taught in Antioch, an ancient Greek city in Turkey. Paul espoused a different version of the church’s teachings which he taught mostly to the Gentiles (non-Jews). Paul’s teachings would lead to Christianity.

In spite of the fact that Christianity has its roots in Judaism (the Old Testament), the similarities end there. Although both religions are monotheistic, the beliefs of Judaism and Christianity are really quite different.  The important differences between the two are Christianity’s beliefs in Original Sin, The Trinity, the messiah story and salvation through Jesus. Of those, the only thing included in Judaism is the belief in a messiah. Even though the Christian belief in a messiah came from the writings of Jewish holy men (in the Old Testament), the two messiahs are very different. Jewish holy men wrote of a messiah who would be a mortal man, not unlike King David who was considered to be both a king and a messiah.  Their messiah would deliver Israel from its enemies while Christianity believes in a universal savior that came to save all of mankind. In effect, two great religions separated by common religious scriptures.



Christianity would follow different paths in the generations to follow. Three hundred years after Jesus, Christianity would be swallowed up by the Roman Empire resulting in Roman Catholicism, centered in Rome with the Pope leading the church. Over time, large blocks of Christians moved away from Catholicism, first the Eastern Orthodox Church and then through the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant Reformation would later fracture into a myriad of denominations. As a result, what passes for Christianity today in most Christian churches bears little resemblance to the teachings of Jesus. However, the major belief systems of Christianity (see above) still stand in stark opposition to the Jewish holy men who wrote the Old Testament.




The Democratic Party used to represent the underdog, the little guy and those with little to no representation, especially minorities.  What happened?

Sure, the Party still arguably represents poor people although even though that may now be in doubt.  Certainly, they are still the party of “free stuff.” They still espouse plenty of social programs, although even that has taken a different fork in the road. Today, the biggest social programs being proposed have nothing to do with providing an umbrella to support the disadvantaged, and certainly not the homeless or veterans. All the talk now is about the Green New Deal and spending trillions of dollars that we don’t have on radically transforming (socially reengineering) the country.  Yet, they don’t want to spend even a small fraction of that to do something about the sh**hole that places like Baltimore have become or cleaning up all the poop on the streets of San Francisco, just to name a few of the major problems that have hit the headlines recently.

Here’s the question that a lot of people are asking: What happened to the people of color amongst the Party’s 2020 presidential candidates?  A recent headline in The New American reads “The Debate Stage: Democrats Blame Their Voters For Their White Presidential Candidates.” The problem with that take is that no one has voted yet.  This is strictly something that is internal to the Party itself. Just ask Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard if the Party’s rules are biased against people of color? You won’t need to ask Democratic Representative Barbara Lee, though. She has publicly said that “the Democratic National Committee’s rules for determining who can participate in its presidential debates is systematically discriminatory against people of color.” Even prominent people of color in the Democratic Party, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, did not endorse a person of color, and not even a woman for that matter. Don’t you have to walk the walk if you’re going to talk the talk?

So, how have we gotten to this point? Where did the old Democratic Party go?  Well for starters, the Party no longer truly represents blue-collar workers as so many of those jobs were shipped overseas. As for Blacks and Hispanics, they have been displaced in the party hierarchy by illegal immigrants. Sanctuary cities can spend millions protecting illegal immigrants without much of a thought to its citizens, particularly Blacks and Hispanics.  It’s really quite ironic since most of the illegal immigrants, themselves, are Hispanic.  As a result, many Blacks and Hispanics are leaving the Democratic Party because they are smart enough to realize that the Democratic Party is simply pandering to them to get their votes.  So, the old core constituency of the party is slowly dissipating.

It was Gregory Meeks of the Black Caucus who spilled the beans when he brought the fight into the open by publicly calling out certain fellow Democrats for targeting the congressional seats of people of color in the upcoming 2020 elections. Then there is civil rights activist Bob Woodson who said that Elizabeth Warren was using racism as a shield to avoid talking about the real problems in the Black community. Candace Owens, for one, would certainly agree (see below).

You may not be old enough to remember what the old Democratic Party was like, but I do. What it has changed into is completely unrecognizable from what I recall. Today, the power behind the throne of the Democratic Party is the white liberal elites (according to none other than the aforementioned Gregory Meeks). It’s no longer about the little guy, it’s about Silicon Valley and Hollywood, it’s about the media companies, and ultimately it’s all about globalism. You and I, we don’t have a voice in the Democratic Party – not anymore.


“You know that white supremacy and white nationalism rank no where near the top of the issues that is facing Black America… It is an attempt to make the election all about race…The things that are actually harming Black America – #1 father absence #2 the education system and the illiteracy rate… White supremacy and white nationalism, if I had to make a list again of 100 things, would not be on it. This hearing, in my opinion, is a farce.  And it’s ironic that you’re sitting here and having three Caucasian people testify and tell you what their expertise is. You want to know what my expertise are – Black and American.”  – Candace Owens, testifying before Congress

So, right after I posted Bernie Sanders vs.The World, the gloves came off at the Democratic debate.  Here’s the headlines in case you missed it:

  • “Media Malpractice: CNN Faces Backlash For One-Sided Questioning on Warren vs. Sanders” – The Daily Caller
  • “At the Iowa Debate, Bernie Sanders’ Most Vociferous Opponent Was CNN” – The Intercept

Yes, the media just can’t help themselves in trying to steer voters to the candidate of choice, the media’s choice that is. Sanders is obviously persona non grata in some media circles as the Democratic moderates who have always run the party flex their muscles against the left wing of the Democratic Party and the ‘Gang of Four’.

What we are witnessing is what I refer to as the Bernie Sanders Effect. It’s what happens when the Democratic Party decides to turn on their own because the candidate doesn’t toe the establishment line. Just ask Tulsi Gabbard who was similarly dismissed by the media and the Democratic establishment because of her opposition to “endless wars”(the Tulsi Gabbard Effect).

You may ask why another far-left candidate like Elizabeth Warren is participating in the attacks on Bernie Sanders. That’s a fair question and the answer is because Elizabeth Warren isn’t running for President.  She’s really running for a cabinet position in someone else’s government. Isn’t politics wonderful?

As in 2016, Bernie Sanders has come under attack by the powers that be in the Democratic Party, including most recently by Elizabeth Warren.  Love him or hate him, Bernie Sanders is a maverick, a maverick who doesn’t play ball.  

A little perspective

Back in 2016, an outfit called Wikileaks (Julian Assange) published emails leaked from the DNC.  Some of the leaked information concerned the Democratic presidential nomination contest, primarily between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.  The emails documented how the DNC, headed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, threw its considerable weight behind Hillary Clinton, in effect stealing the nomination from Bernie Sanders.  However, the scandal was swallowed up by a brilliant ruse, that the Russians had hacked the DNC servers.  The Russians, for their part, were not the source of the leaked emails. Rather, it was an inside job, a whistleblower in effect.   

Bernie in 2020

Despite what you may have heard or seen to date, you need to understand that the DNC once again is going to back Hillary as their party’s candidate for president in 2020.  The socialist candidates, except for Sanders and Warren, have all self-destructed.  Socialism, itself, is being widely rejected by the vast majority of American voters. Warren remains in the race for one reason – to keep Bernie Sanders from winning the nomination.  Some Democratic political strategists have already conceded the 2020 race to Trump. The battlefield, now, is all about control of Congress. Bottom line: A socialist presidential candidate would severely hurt the Democratic Party’s chances in 2020 congressional races.

Karma is a bitch

If there had been a level playing field back in 2016, Bernie Sanders likely would have won the Democratic nomination.  In that case, he probably would have also gone on to defeat Donald Trump. Fast forward to 2020: Even if Bernie Sanders somehow survives all the attacks from within his own party, he probably has no chance this time around against Trump. 

The irony is that the DNC is their own worst enemy. To make matters worse, some of the Bernie Sanders’ supporters may well have helped elect Donald Trump in 2016, and might vote for him again in 2020 (or stay home altogether).


Shortly after the emails were downloaded from the DNC servers, a member of the DNC who had access to the emails was murdered under mysterious circumstances. Then the world got the cover story (Russiagate). It’s a dirty little secret that you’re not supposed to know about…but, of course, now you know.

Trolling The Masses


The media continuously has to manufacture news to pander to their audience, or maybe more correctly to influence their audience.  Case-in-point is the use of polling. Polling in a way is a substitute for old-fashioned journalism, which literally doesn’t exist anymore. If polls were a valid way to identify voter sentiments, then Hillary Clinton would have been president, but she’s not.  That alone should tell you something.  

So, I pose two questions for your consideration:

  • Why are polls so inaccurate? 

I’ll just touch on a few points. Polls don’t necessarily reflect only “likely voters”.  Some polls don’t even try to narrow their poll to voters (at all) or even to just citizens for that matter. Some people feel uncomfortable in our current politically correct environment to publicly express their opinions.  Worse, polls that claim to reflect likely voters bias the sample in favor of a certain response.

  • What is the real purpose of polls?

Public opinion is always interesting to know (for some) but what is the point of widely disseminating poll results? There is only one definitive answer that I’ve been able to ascertain and that is to shape the opinion of those reading or hearing about the polling results.  That’s because studies have shown that people are influenced by the opinions of others. Instead, of trying to find out what people think, polls are actually trying to influence how people think and how they act (e.g. voting).  They are, in effect, an extension of the media and their results are almost always skewed in order to influence the reader. 

So, if it was the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the last French presidential election or the Brexit referendum, the polls were completely out of whack with the results.  However, one has to ask this question: Would the actual election results have been even more skewed from the polls if there had been no poll at all? Bottom line: Do polls unfairly affect election results? Keep in mind that polls affect not just voters but our legislators as well. For example, polls can affect how our elected officials vote on legislation because they claim to properly reflect public opinion.

So, the next time you read a poll remember this.  You are likely being trolled. They want your vote and, given the public’s distrust of the media, this perhaps is their best way to get it.  With a few exceptions like a Barack Obama or a Donald Trump, people running for high public office are rarely effective communicators capable of inspiring millions of voters to vote for them.  So, polls become the weapon of choice.  Welcome to the world of asymmetrical politics.

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”  – William Casey, former CIA Director

Nathaniel Blake writing in The Populist said that, “‘Epstein didn’t kill himself’ has become a pervasive cultural meme, as a general assertion of cynicism regarding the incompetence and moral degeneracy of our elites, which has produced a crisis of credibility for our leaders and institutions…The sense that corruption and incompetence are the norm, rather than confined to President Trump, is why so many voters are not taking impeachment seriously.

Unfortunately, that’s only the tip of the iceberg. What we’re faced with is nothing less than the ongoing destruction of America.  As Thomas Jefferson said, “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Today, we are near the tipping point, moving away from liberty to tyranny.  The once-great Roman Empire experienced the same cycle of corruption and decadence, followed by implosion.  All empires eventually crumble and fall.

Although Blake’s article was worth the read, it stopped far short of saying what will be necessary to reverse the decline.  Blake didn’t mention that each of us has a moral obligation to defend liberty from tyranny (rather than promoting our own personal ideology). Politics won’t solve the problem for us, and certainly neither will the politicians.  Rather, the divisiveness of politics will only accelerate the spiral down.  

Some people are actually beginning to get it, thank you Ricky Gervais, while others unfortunately will never get it because with decadence comes a certain level of insanity.  I’m talking about the insanity of thinking that one can continually operate on an inhumane level, that the rules don’t apply to them (and to them alone). Having a public discussion about our “shortcomings” could be very therapeutic although it will no doubt make some people uncomfortable. Dead or alive, Jeffrey Epstein is probably having a panic attack right now.


“Lots of big celebrities here tonight. Legends. Icons… They all have one thing in common: They’re all terrified of Ronan Farrow. He’s coming for ya. Talking of all you perverts, it was a big year for pedophile movies. Surviving R. Kelly, Leaving Neverland, Two Popes.”  – Ricky Gervais, speaking at the Golden Globes

DNA of the Gods


The Sumerian civilization of the ancient Middle East appeared suddenly out of nowhere almost 6,000 years ago.  I say out of nowhere because that ‘s how world-renown expert in Sumerian history Samuel Kramer described it.  In any event, the Sumerian civilization had no precursor in world history and not even the vaunted Greek civilization, which followed some 3,000 years later, could compare to the Sumerian civilization.  So, where did they come from and where did they go to?  How come their advanced civilization was never passed along to future generations?

To understand the enormity of this occurrence one needs to understand that civilizations evolve in small increments over long periods of time.  In this case, man overnight took a quantum leap from being a hunter-gatherer to building great cities and using advanced technology, and then suddenly forgot how they did it and regressed back to being hunter-gatherers again.

There’s really only one way to explain such an unusual occurrence.  They came out of nowhere because they literally came from nowhere.  That is, from nowhere on this planet. Just ask former Nobel Prize winner Sir Francis Crick who came up with the ground-breaking double-helix structure of DNA and realized its implications. That is, DNA in many respects is more advanced than Man himself.

The heritage of the ancient Hebrews/Israelites can be traced all the way back to the Sumerian civilization, back to their patriarch Abraham.  Abraham’s descendants would one day reduce to writing their family history which was passed on orally for some 3,000 years.  It’s called the Old Testament (of the Bible) and the Book of Genesis has its roots in Sumeria and ancient Sumerian texts.

The ancient Hebrews were told to keep the bloodline pure, a sacred bloodline which stretched all the way back to the Sumerian kings.  That bloodline contained the legacy of the Sumerians, literally the DNA of the gods.  The Sumerians left but their DNA has been passed on from generation to generation. However, over time, the DNA of the descendants of the Sumerians has been watered down because they did not keep their bloodline pure.  As a result, these descendants literally de-evolved over the last 6,000 years.  One could only imagine what the Sumerian gods would say if they ever returned.


“With stunning abruptness… there appears in this little Sumerian mud garden… the whole cultural syndrome that has since constituted the germinal unit of all the high civilizations of the world.” – Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God 

The Source


A few of you have asked about the “Source” of life from my last post The Third Way. Here’s what I can tell you. No one knows about the Source.  No one. It is beyond space and time.  As Michael Talbot said in his book, The Holographic Universe, our universe is the result of energies emanating from another dimension, a deeper order of existence. Therefore, from a scientific standpoint, we will never be able to observe and/or measure the Source.  All we can observe is the effect.  

There are, however, perhaps a few inferences that we can draw based on our observation of the effect:

  • There must be an uncaused first-cause (the Source), whether it be personal or impersonal.
  • The Source can never be part of the Creation.  Religious implication: As it says in the Book of John, no one has ever seen “God” (the Source).
  • The beauty and harmony in Nature is a reflection of the Source.

Further, Heaven is man’s interpretation about the Source. Life can be compared to some extent to a flashlight.  When you turn on the flashlight in a dark room, the room is illuminated by the light; thus the biblical expression, “Let there be light (life).  Death, on the other hand, is an illusion; when you turn off the flashlight the light returns to the Source (heaven).  It only ceases to exist in this dimension.

In the final analysis, it is my belief that we are all spiritual beings having a physical experience as opposed to physical beings having a spiritual experience.  We come from the Source and we return to the Source.  Beyond that, only God(?) knows for sure.


The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.”  – John Wheeler, physicist