Treason? Trump Hints Obama Gave Russia Plans to Build Hypersonic Missiles
Former President Donald Trump suggested former President Barack Obama may have been involved in the U.S. government giving away hypersonic missile technology to Russia in recent years.
Trump made the comment during a rally in Asheboro, North Carolina, on Wednesday while speaking about revamping American innovation in technology and robotics.
“Hypersonics, these are missiles that go 7 times faster than a fast, ordinary missile,” Trump told the crowd. “So fast, that for the most part, you can’t shut ’em down and you can’t shoot ’em down.”
Whoa…. ?
— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) August 21, 2024
Trump said that Barrack Hussein Obama Committed Treason by Giving Putin the Plans to Build Hypersonic Missiles
“Somebody gave Russia all of our plans for hypersonic missiles.. and they built them and we didn’t.”
Someone in the audience Yelled out Bill Clinton….… pic.twitter.com/W5Kqq3U7Y2
“Do you know that was our technology that was stolen by Russia? And Russia has them, and I started them very quickly.
“But somebody gave Russia years ago, before me, all of our plans and specs for hypersonic missiles. And they built them, and we didn’t,” Trump explained.
At that point, someone in the audience yelled out former President Bill Clinton’s name.
“He said Bill Clinton,” Trump chuckled. “It could be. In all fairness, might’ve been a little after Bill Clinton…it could’ve been Barack Hussein Obama. Perhaps you should ask him.”
Trump’s remarks are astonishing given his classified knowledge as a former president and the fact no previous media reports have revealed the U.S. funneled highly secret military technology to Russia, which would amount to treason.
According to Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
The current gap in the ongoing hypersonic arms race between Russia and the U.S. has come under particular focus during the Ukraine conflict.
Russia has demonstrated in recent months just how far its developments in hypersonic technology have come by using state-of-the-art Zircon missiles to strike targets in Kiev and Ukraine warships in the Black Sea.
This is why the Deep State is so determined to stop Trump from retaking the White House — he apparently knows about the treasonous elements in government who’ve sold out the American people.
Roger Stone: RFK Jr. Endorsement Of Trump Will Be MASSIVE
Roger Stone gives his take on report RFK Jr. will endorse former President Trump after announcing he will bow out of the 2024 race this week, and what that will mean for the political landscape ahead of the pivotal election in November.
Roger Stone: RFK Jr. Endorsement Of Trump Will Be MASSIVE@RogerJStoneJr pic.twitter.com/74OHCBv4bq
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) August 21, 2024
Kamala’s Secret Masonic Police Scandal Gets Even Weirder
The scandal surrounding Kamala Harris’ connection to a secret Masonic police force is getting deeper as records reveal a close relationship between Harris and the Freemasons involved in the illegal police force.
As I recently reported, Kamala Harris was working directly with the Masonic group in Los Angeles that operated an illegal shadow police department that aimed to set up shop in 33 different states including Mexico City. Kamala Harris’ own staffer Brandon Kiel was arrested for his role in the scheme. The secret police force claimed to be a modern descendant of the Knights Templar, based on “bloodlines.”
Now, the scandal deepens. Muckracker.com (which cited my original report) followed up with an investigation into some of the videos put out by the Masonic group, and Kamala Harris’ name pops up repeatedly.
If you’re not familiar with the case, it’s quite a doozy. Then-California attorney general Kamala Harris’ deputy director of community affairs Brandon Kiel’s arrest in 2015 for “impersonating a peace office” sparked a brief wacky news item about the secret Masonic police force that involved Kiel and his top hat-wearing father-in-law David Inkk Henry (aka “David Henry X,”) who also got arrested. Kiel had his charges dropped on the same day that David Henry X suffered a pulmonary embolism and died at age 47 in 2016.
Muckraker points to several old Youtube videos in which members of the Masonic police department explicitly refer to their relationship with Kamala Harris, making it clear that Harris had deep ties to Kiel and the Masonic group, which debunks her office’s initial attempt to distance herself from Kiel.
In one video, Brandon Kiel, speaking in front of a crowd of Masons at a Masonic gathering, stated “The Attorney General appointed me. I have her authority.” Kiel then described a program that Harris’ office was working on that lines up with Kiel’s agenda of being “smart on crime and not tough on crime.”
David Inkk Henry, aka David Henry X, expressed his view that his arrest and the arrests of his Masonic Fraternal Police colleagues were actually motivated by a political power play against Kamala Harris:
I recently unearthed the Masonic Fraternal Police Department’s mission statement (ARCHIVED HERE) which states the following: “The Masonic Fraternal Police Department, (M.F.P.D.) is the Knights Templar’s!…When asked what is the difference between The Masonic Fraternal Police Department and other Police Departments the answer is simple for us. We were here first! We are born into this Organization our bloodlines go deeper than an application.This is more then a job it is an obligation.”
“The Masonic Fraternal Police Department (M.F.P.D.) is a Masonic Sovereign Jurisdiction (Municipality) located within the incorporated City of Santa Clarita, California. The Chief of Police is Honorable Grand Master David Henry 33(degree) was elected and is Governed by a Grand Supreme Council, and 33 Masonic jurisdictions. He currently oversees a 1/2 Million members throughout the United States,” according to the group’s website, which is no longer active.
“The Masonic Fraternal Police Department (M.F.P.D.) provides services to Masonic Sovereign Grand Masters and their Masonic jurisdictions, as well as other Fraternities, Sororities, and Greek Organizations. Masonic Fraternal Police Department will be located in 33 other states, including Mexico City,” according to the group.
In 2014 in Los Angeles, David Henry X introduced Kamala Harris’ staffer Brandon Kiel at a Masonic St. John’s Day event, where Brandon Kiel represented Harris’ office.
L.A. Watts Times reported on June 19, 2014 (emphasis added): “Grand Masters and members of the Order were escorted by a motorcade to Mt. Tabor Missionary Baptist Church. The Conference, founded by Grand Master Willie Gaulf 33° was designed to create unity among the Grand Lodges in Southern California…R.W. Grand High Priest, Brandon Kiel serves as the Deputy Director of Community Affairs for Attorney General Kamala D. Harris. Kiel informed the audience of the Attorney General’s unyielding commitment to education and the importance of each and every members obligation to ensure that every child is reading by the 3rd grade an (sic) at 3rd grade reading level, as well as having perfect attendance. Kiel provided shocking information about the staggering numbers of elementary school students who were truant in California and how the Attorney General needs their support to address this critical issue. Kiel received a large round of applause.”
Kiel and David Henry X also stood behind an LAPD sergeant during a press conference when rioters inspired by the Trayvon Martin case were rampaging around L.A.
What is really going on with Kamala Harris and the Masons? PATRICK REPORTS will keep you updated with our series THE KAMALA FILES….
Alex Jones Issues Emergency Warning: If Not Stopped, The Globalists Will Collapse Civilization And Create Hell On Earth
The Dragon Behind The DNC
Does the dragon in The Book of Revelation represent the Communist Chinese?
The Democrats have deep ties to Communism.
Kamala Harris and her Marxist cohorts are setting us up for the final battle.
Like John the Revelator, we are marveling at the beast
Kamala’s Dad Praised Karl Marx In Pro-Communist Essay
Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ father Donald J. Harris praised socialist theoretician Karl Marx, according to records obtained by PATRICK REPORTS.
Donald J. Harris is on tape (below) discussing how the world financial system should be “changed” and “altered” to benefit Third World countries. Harris, who was repeatedly identified as a Marxist in the Stanford University newspaper, also praised Marxist economics as being “rooted in the interests of the working class.”
Kamala’s father Donald J. Harris was born in Jamaica (the descendant of a white slaveowner named Hamilton Brown, according to his own admission) and served as an economics professor at Stanford University, where his Marxist views made him a lightning rod for campus controversy.
In April 1972, Donald J. Harris wrote the introduction for a new version of a book entitled “The Economic Theory Of The Leisure Class,” which was written by Bolshevik Soviet revolutionary Nikolai Bukharin.
In the book’s introduction, Kamala Harris’ father Donald J. Harris writes:
“In the tradition of Marxist critiques, it is a significant contribution. But there has really been nothing in this area to compare with the monumental work of Marx himself, Theories of Surplus Value (or even the shorter treatise, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.”) The standard attained by Marx’s performance would in any case be hard to equal. That work still remains the definitive and most “systematic resumé of the whole complex of political economy” (in Engels’ words) as it had taken shape up to Marx’s time. It continues to have direct relevance as well to contemporary theory.”
Later in his introduction, Harris praises Marxism in comparison to capitalism, with Harris writing that Marxisim is “rooted in the interests of the working class.”
“So far as the sociological criticism is concerned, it is helpful to recall Marx’s general characterization of the role of “bourgeois political economy” and its relation to Marxian political economy: In the early phase of capitalist development, bourgeois political economy, by championing the interests of the emerging bourgeoisie in its struggle against the pre-existing dominant class, performs a radical scientific role in exposing the nature of commodity-producing precapitalist society. In the later phase of capitalism, however, bourgeois political economy turns to justification of the system in which the bourgeoisie has become ascendant and is threatened by the growing workers’ movement. It thereby loses its scientific role, a role which is to be taken by Marxian political economy rooted in the interests of the working class.”
In 1989, Donald J. Harris spoke on a panel called “Alternative Perspectives on International Economy” in which he expounded on his radical beliefs.
WATCH THE VIDEO:
“I think one has to address systematically the question of the structure of the financial, the international financial system itself,” Harris said on the 1989 panel.
Harris explained his view that greedy banks are merely operating within a financial structure that needs to be changed and altered to benefit Third World countries — making clear the internationalist aims of the Marxist movement.
“This issue of the structure of the financial system has not really been told adequately in this discussion, and in fact insofar as the position of knocking the banks borders on a purely moralistic argument about bank greed. It really misses the point that banks exist in a structure in which they have to function. They have to survive and grow, and their actions must then be interpreted as reasonably rational policies adopted in order to survive and grow in that structure. So the issue then becomes what is the nature of the structure and how can it be changed and altered in order to accommodate the needs of Third World countries,” Harris stated.
As I previously uncovered, the Stanford University campus newspaper archives contain numerous references to Don Harris’ Marxism.
According to a May 15, 1975 piece in the Stanford Daily headlined “Marxist Offered Economics Post“: “Don Harris, a prominent Marxist professor, has been offered a full professorship in the Economics Department here, Department Chairman James Rosse confirmed yesterday…The appointment is the direct result of student pressure in recent years to hire more faculty who favor an “alternative approach” to economics, said Economics Prof. John Gurley, who now teaches the only undergraduate course in Marxist economics. Gurley said the appointment of Harris was the culmination of a six-month “round-the-world” search for the most qualified Marxist professor available. Gurley called Harris “an exceptionally good teacher, outstanding researcher, and one of the leading young people in Marxist economics…With the addition of Harris, the department would be able to offer a much greater number of courses taught from a Marxist viewpoint.”
According to a May 21, 1975 piece in the Stanford Daily: “The University’s offer of a tenured position to Marxist economist Don Harris represents a welcome but long overdue action on the part of the Economics Department. The decision to hire another Marxist is primarily the result of continual pressure on the administration by concerned students, and we must commend the Economics Department for paying attention to this student input.”
A January 31, 1974 Stanford Daily editorial headlined “Econ Department Needs Marxian Profs” used the phrase: “Marxist scholars like Don Harris.”
According to a March 14, 1974 Stanford Daily article with the headline “Econ Students Again Demand Expanded Marxian Program”: “But Don Harris, visiting economics professor and advocate of radical economics, suggested that the faculty recommendations hadn’t really met the students’ original demands. “[The proposals] are biased towards the graduate students. Undergrads have, to some degree, been left out. The alternative approaches’ proposal is clearly directed to the graduates,” Harris observed. “If the real objective is to provide a broad-based undergraduate program in Marxian economics, the department is going to need some more manpower,” he added. Abramovitz, pointing to the faculty “alternative approaches” field, argued that the department would be getting needed manpower…“I have heard no worthwhile arguments against Marxian economics. [Other faculty members] view all other approaches as inferior to their own. There has really been no serious discussion of alternatives,” such as Marxian economics, Harris stated. (The Article Continues on Page 20 of That Stanford Daily Issue)… “This is an objectionable judgment which is made out of ignorance of the historical background and traditions of Marxian economics. Such ignorance is self-replacing through the training that the graduate students receive,” Harris contended.’”
According to an April 3, 1974 Stanford Daily piece: “On March 11, a Daily article reported renewed demands by the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) on the Economics Dept. for a commitment to teaching Marxian economics. Statements by department chairman Moses Abramovitz quoted in that article constitute a clear attempt on his part to obscure and distort the issues. Abramovitz cited “the Marxian economics workshop that is now a regular departmental seminar, a graduate theory course on Marx, Don Harris’ courses, and the recently approved field of study in ‘alternative approaches to economic analysis.” His list sounds impressive until you look more closely. Harris’ courses will end this spring when his contract expires; departmental failure to consider a tenure offer to Harris was one reason we drafted our recent statement. The seminar is now sponsored by Gurley and Harris; Harris will be gone next year, and Gurley will be on leave Autumn quarter.”
FOLLOW PATRICK REPORTS TO KEEP UP WITH OUR SERIES “THE KAMALA FILES”….
Alex Jones Issues Emergency Warning: If Not Stopped, The Globalists Will Collapse Civilization And Create Hell On Earth
The Folly Of Legislating Against Unfairness
In A Cure Worse Than The Disease: Fighting Discrimination Through Government Control, M. Lester O’Shea criticizes the notion that we should legislate against unfairness.
He poses the question as follows: “No one defends unfairness. So shouldn’t it be against the law?” In posing the question that way, his point is that the mere fact that we regard something as unfair – or even morally wrong – does not mean we ought to legislate against it. This point is of central importance to his argument against antidiscrimination legislation.
Walter Williams adopts a similar approach in Race and Economics, arguing that the mere fact that free markets are blind to all sorts of interactions and bargains that we might regard as “unfair” does not mean there ought to be some sort of legislative intervention to redress the unfairness. Williams gives the example of minimum wage legislation, arguing that it is folly to introduce laws mandating a wage determined by the government to be “fair,” while overlooking the fact that mandatory wage interventions often lead to worse outcomes including rising unemployment. Williams therefore regards legislative interventions which attempt to “correct” the market by introducing fairness as misguided. He argues that,
Economic theory as such cannot answer questions of fairness. However economic theory can predict the effects of not permitting some people to charge lower prices for what they sell and [offer] higher prices for what they buy.
In the context of racial fairness, Williams points out that focusing on oppression and discrimination, highlighting the racial injustices of the past and attempting to correct them, does not yield solutions to today’s problems: “an acknowledgement of and consensus on those injustices, and on residual discrimination, do not carry us very far in evaluating what is or is not in the best interest of blacks nowadays.”
A further difficulty with legislating for fairness is that many people who attempt to enforce fairness understand fairness as equality – they argue that fairness requires that everyone be treated equally. This is a reasonable argument if equal treatment means treating everyone the same in relation to legal rights and duties. However, once it is proposed to legislate for equality, an entire raft of equal treatment provisions inevitably follows, which has more to do with allocating phony civil rights to favored groups that are viewed as disadvantaged while punishing other groups that are viewed as advantaged. The fairness enterprise then turns out to be yet another social engineering program.
The declaration that all men are created equal does not require legislative enforcement through the superimposition of a further set of “equality rights.” Further, there is no such thing as a right not to be discriminated against, as a right to non-discrimination inevitably infringes upon the freedoms of others. As Rothbard explains,
…anti-discrimination laws or edicts of any sort are evil because they run roughshod over the only fundamental natural right: the right of everyone over his own property. Every property owner should have the absolute right to sell, hire, or lease his money or other property to anyone whom he chooses, which means he has the absolute right to “discriminate” all he damn pleases.
All anyone can claim is the right to the same protections of life, liberty, and property that vest the same way in everyone. The tendency of equality legislation to transmute from formal equality to substantive equality is not an accident or an oversight, but rather inherent in the nature of enforcing fairness.
At an abstract level, it is easy to distinguish between equality and equity, but any attempt to legislate equal or fair treatment relies on a concept of “discrimination,” which in turn requires measurement of outcomes. That is because no advocate of equality enforcement has so far been able to suggest an enforcement mechanism which does not rely on comparison – we know whether two things are equal by comparing them – and comparison, by its very nature, requires measurement. Measurement, in turn, leads to a focus on gaps and inequalities. And, for that reason, legislative enforcement of equality focuses on eradicating gaps or disparities. In practice, eradicating gaps is no different from equalizing outcomes. This is especially true because egalitarians have little or no interest in what causes disparities: they assume a starting point in which everyone is (or should be) equal and set about equalizing conditions without any inquiry into causal factors.
In the view of many egalitarians, fairness is only achieved when everyone enjoys equal material circumstances. Rawls’s difference principle is said to be the relevant approach in determining what is “fair,” namely the principle that fairness is achieved by introducing measures which are “to the advantage of the least well-off class in society,” even if this means sacrificing private property rights. As David Gordon has argued in “Is Rawls Stupid?” far from defending a robust concept of private property, Rawls states that, “Two wider conceptions of the right of property as a basic liberty are to be avoided. One conception extends this right to include certain rights of acquisition and bequest, as well as the right to own means of production and natural resources.” In that sense, Rawls recognizes that his conceptualization of fairness as equality is incompatible with a strong defense of property rights.
Legislating for fairness, in reality, operates to the detriment of private property rights. The folly of legislating for fairness is that ultimately such legislation is incompatible with the liberties associated with private property such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of contract.
Alex Jones Issues Emergency Warning: If Not Stopped, The Globalists Will Collapse Civilization And Create Hell On Earth