All posts by Sarah Reynolds

Sigma Female Analysis Video: (Future) CIA Director Gina Haspel

The first woman CIA director! President Trump has nominated current CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel to become the new Director after Mike Pompeo goes over to the State Department.



Click on the image to watch “First Impressions.” 


Sigma women are mission oriented, crave and demand autonomy and independence, are profoundly loyal and tend to be truly known by only a very few close members of their family and friend groups. They do not fit into a societal mold that requires marriage, children or other cultural indicators of success. They make great leaders but do not seek leadership positions for the sake of having authority over others; they endure leadership positions for the sake of protecting the greater good of the tribe.



Click on the image to watch “Gina Haspel: Sigma Female Body Language & Speech Pattern Analysis” and find out what Sarah thinks that Johnny Cash poster is really all about!

Sigma Bolton and Alpha Mattis: friends? Body Language/Speech Pattern analysis video

Alpha males and sigma males get along great (99% of the time!!) … watch these two meet and become fast friends. Alpha males have nick names for everyone and Sigmas secretly love to know that they are valued enough by the tribe to have the Alpha bestow a moniker on them. Ambassador John Bolton (soon to be National Security Advisor John Bolton) is the classic Sigma male and General James Mattis is an alpha male who definitely wants Bolton on his team.



Click the image to watch the video on bitchute. Thank you for watching!









Andrew McCabe’s Man Crush on Comey: Deep State McCabe Exposed


Now we know that not only is McCabe a totally jerk boss and sex (gender) discriminator, he ALSO was colluding with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page against Donald Trump during the Hillary Clinton emails investigation. Guess they needed an “insurance policy” against Trump actually winning. And now, the House Intel committee has email evidence that Hillary Clinton was going to be given an FBI “Headquarters Special.” HOLY CRAP. Watch my Dec 24 periscope about it here.



Interim Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe is as corrupt as the day is long! Even his subordinates say he’s a screamer and discriminates against them.  And what’s thiiiiiiis? General Mike Flynn was willing to testify on Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz’ behalf AGAINST her direct supervisor (at the time) Andrew McCabe in sex discrimination lawsuit? What’s that? McCabe gave her nasty critical annual reviews to prevent her from being promoted? What now, General Flynn wrote her a glowing review on Pentagon stationery in stark contrast to Andy “I have a blatant man crush on Jim Comey” McCabe?






Let’s periscope about it!!

Click here to watch it in the periscope app or on the periscope site, if you can’t view it in the embedded tweet below.










And don’t miss the latest episode of The Progressive Radio Show: Deep State McCabe & Retaliation Against Flynn, Trump Tweets on Mika & Psycho Joe.  #BlogTalkRadio

Or click on the link below to listen — it will open in a new window! Hear your favorite progressive patriot analyze the speech patterns & body language of corrupt McCabe when he testifies before the House Intel Committee. Somebody has an intense man-crush on Comey. DAMN.



Gender X and What I Wish I Would Have Said When I Was Asked to “Declare My Pronouns”

For those who’ve followed me since I was a Bernie supporter – and before I boarded the Trump Train in July of 2016 — you know that I lost several friends due to my vocal support of Trump on Twitter. Not for sharing my support of Trump on fB, not for sharing my support for him at work, not around my family, not around my friends in our social group in person (because I mentioned nothing about Trump on any of those platforms or around any of those people), but ONLY for tweeting about it.  Yes, you may recall that two of my friends (married to each other) ended their friendship with me because I said on twitter that I could not in good conscience vote for Hillary now that Bernie was out of the race. At the time, I was just warming to Trump and was relieved that he was using terms like fair trade and understood that NAFTA eviscerated the American middle class, and was campaigning on ending endless war and actually defeating ISIS instead of perpetuating the Middle East quagmire for another 15 years (in contrast to Hillary who laughed gleefully about the sodomized-to-death Qaddafi and the cesspool of despair that replaced his strongman rule in Libya after her State Department raped that country). These two ex-friends literally texted me (because that is how you diplomatically end a nine year friendship), “We know it sounds petty, but if you support Trump, we can’t be friends.” So why do I bring them up? Because one of them was a female to male transgender. One who went to Court to get his driver’s license to say M instead of F.

Now, despite the fact that I was shocked and hurt that they (and he especially, because we worked together before he started his hormone therapy and most people unconsciously still automatically referred to him as HER and I accepted him exactly as he wanted to be accepted without further judgment) ended our friendship, I still support trans issues. Why? Because I believe that if we demand that people conform to a social norm that requires deception, then we as a society are complicit in committing fraud against the inevitable victim. A similar example is when society forces gay men to “act straight” and marry women. In that case too, all of society acts as the collective warden who keeps the woman who finds herself in a loveless (and eventually sexless) marriage imprisoned. If people born male who felt like they should have been born female (and the reverse) were allowed to transition without further comment the way gay people are allowed to marry each other, we would avoid the problem of fraud-based unions and all the unhappiness that floods the immediate family as well as the extended tribe from there.

If we demand that people conform to a social norm that requires deception, then we as a society are complicit in committing fraud against the inevitable victim.

But a third category? A “neither he nor she” gender class? People who’d get an X on their driver’s license instead of an M or an F? That’s bullshit. And it’s bullshit of the most insidious kind. Why? Because it’s actually the best way to delegitimize the trans rights movement.

(And by rights, I literally mean, the freedom of my friend and others like him to live as the gender they feel they should have been born into and/or legal protection from the government taking action to prevent him and people like him from doing so. I mean, he’s married to a woman — they go out into the world as man and wife and now that he’s fully transitioned, you’d have no idea he was ever female, unlike, I’m sorry to say, trans women who still give me that man feeling even after they’ve had the ultimate surgery. Although, who knows — I may have met some trans women who transitioned so well that I just took them for born-female individuals when they weren’t. So, ok — benefit of the doubt.)

The best way to stop the movement in its tracks, especially after people like Caitlyn Jenner are helping mainstream America understand that transgender is a thing and does happen, even to extremely masculine men, would be to infiltrate it with people who want to introduce absurdity into the discussion — making ridiculous patently false baseless claims like, “there is no gender.” And here I want to make an important logic-based point. If there is no gender, then how can a person “identify” as the opposite gender? Trans people, by definition (and in order to be diagnosed and prescribed the hormone drugs necessary to “transition” by a medical doctor) must have symptoms that meet this description: “strong, persistent feelings of identification with the opposite gender and discomfort with one’s own assigned sex that results in significant distress or impairment. People with gender dysphoria desire to live as members of the opposite sex.” The OPPOSITE sex. Without two opposite sexes, you can’t “identify” with the one you’re not. Don’t let me over-explain this — I know you get it. Without two genders, you can’t transition from one to the other. And by gender I mean sex, of course, and by sex, I mean gender in this context (which is why our state I.D.’s as well as our birth certificates say “sex” on them).

So people, every day Americans, were just starting to warm (or thaw?) to the idea of trans people when in walk these pseudo-liberal infiltrators who start blabbing at the mouth this nonsense about gender as a continuum — or, even more counterproductively, about gender as an illusion. And let me say, I too was skeptical of transgenderism and I was raised by an open-minded mom who was in the antiques business and had several gay male friends who were really nice to me and good friends and customers of hers. I never knew homophobia — it just wasn’t part of what I was exposed to growing up. And even I thought “trans” was weird when at age 26 I met my first real life trans person. Really weird. It took getting to know someone close to me who could give me a glimpse into the very real hell he went through during puberty, feeling literally like he was in the wrong body. I mean, it sounded so sad and terrible to me. But I admit, also very bizarre. He had a girlfriend who was a very feminine woman … I had to really process what I was seeing. I slipped often and accidentally used female pronouns to describe him in a way that would not have happened if I had met him after he transitioned and he finally “looked” like a guy after taking Testosterone.

So I get it when everyday people go, “Ok, this is just weird. Is trans like … gay? Cause I’ve known some gays.” Then you put people like Caitlyn Jenner on the TV and they go, “Ok, it’s still weird but it’s less out there than before because Bruce Jenner was an Olympian I’ve heard of. Hmm, I’ll think about it.” So people’s minds opened to what transgenderism is and while the skepticism remained, a national conversation was at least happening. But insert people like the sadistic MAN (below) who was the first in the country to get an X on his Washington, DC driver’s license into the national dialogue and, suddenly, people’s minds shut faster than a cellar door during a late night summer storm. And for good reason. It’s a ploy: it’s a divide and conquer strategy. This guy is a full of shit LIAR who just wants to make people uncomfortable and gets off on it (I suspect – I suspect it makes his DICK hard because he has a DICK because he’s a MAN with a PENIS).

This WaPo story tells of MISTER Nik Sakurai of a Washington, DC who just applied for a big X rather than the standard M on his driver’s license. Guess what? He went to an all boys high school and came out as gay and bi at some point(s) during his senior year. Ok, fine. But then he decides that he’s really more of a They/Them person and “gender neutral” than a He/Him and male. For the logic based reason I described earlier, this undermines the trans movement which requires 2 genders (2 sexes) to transition between, by definition, but it also denigrates the very real pain of trans people who feel that they were born into the wrong body! (Imagine that! Really imagine what that would be like, please! It would be a living horror movie. Only your real life.) But there’s another more sinister component at the core of this attempt to create a third gender. Forced speech. I mentioned earlier that had I met my (former) trans friend after he’d been on Testosterone, I would not have guessed he’d been born female. And how he explained it to me was, “I identify as male” not, “I am really male and in denial of the uterus I have,” but with the acknowledgement/caveat that he is not actually male but would like to appear to be so that society sees him that way because that’s how he feels in his mind. That’s A HUGE difference. The first acknowledges reality and talks about identifying as the opposite gender as a compulsion; the second denies reality, much like Nik here who wants to “identify” with something that doesn’t exist.

Here is the perfect place for me to point out that we as a society must conduct scientific research to find out what’s going on here, and ask, why the onslaught of gender dysphoric people in our society? We know that hormones and other chemicals in our water are causing the feminization of fish and other animals. We would be remiss to assume that our species would be exempt from such side effects. We need to guard our human species’ fertility and virility as though our survival depended on it (because it obviously does). Also, ladies, be wise when you purchase your make-up; most make-up and even many perfumes contain phthalates which are known endocrine disruptors. According to a 2009 study published in the Journal of Andrology, “phthalates, the chemical found in many vinyl and plastic products, tends to ‘feminize’ boys, altering their brains to express more feminine characteristics. Phthalates are found in vinyl products (including vinyl flooring), PVC shower curtains, plastic furniture and even in the plastic coating of the insides of dishwashing machines.” They’re also linked to decreased fertility, “reproductive toxicity”, and cancer. Phthalates have been banned from cosmetics in the European Union, but are still found in MOST cosmetics sold in the United States. Learn more, PLEASE.

D.C. is not the only place where one can obtain a driver’s license that indicates that they identify with an imaginary state of existence. Now Oregon passed a law making it an option on their driver’s licenses too. Watch the brief video about it, courtesy of Big League Politics, below.

Gender neutrality is not real. And we as a society MUST protest the idea that it is, but even more than “we as a society,” actual trans people must fight this concept and these infiltrators, and fight them hard, and WIN. Because the goal of Nik and people like him is not to create a loving accepting society where people can be free to be who they are; it’s to use FORCE to FORCE people to comply to their vision of a gender-LESS society, the one they are taking action to create, every single day.

There’s another more sinister component at the core of this attempt to create a third gender. Forced speech.

In the spring of 2016, I took a class at St Catherine University, at the time a women-only school (I was taking this class with the day students while being enrolled in the Evening Weekend Online program) called “the Philosophy of Sex, Sexuality and Love” and in this class, there was a young woman who was attempting to sort through who and what she was. She was very open about having identified as everything there is possible to identify as, gay, bi, cis (cis is short for cisgender and means born female, identifies as a straight woman OR born male, identifies as a straight man). Presently, she had chosen a gender neutral name and was using male pronouns. Unlike my friend who was literally dying to get on Testosterone at that age and who chose a masculine name when he changed his name (which he did in court, not just by telling everyone, I go by “_______” now), she was very flippant about exploring all the “nonbinary” options. I was struck by something so insincere about her. About her demeanor. About her speech affect. And, I couldn’t help feeling so bad for my friend (all over again) who had felt so profoundly alienated by a female body and wanted nothing more than to have been born male so he wouldn’t have to hurt his family by becoming — literally — someone else. In contrast, this undergrad’s nonchalant chitchat about gender identity came across as shallow and demeaning of actually trans people, whose emotional compulsion to seek the gender role ascribed by society to the opposite sex is unyielding — and authentic. I chalked it up to the normal teenage angst that many people go through and figured that at the least, I’d meet some interesting people in the class and have some interesting philosophical arguments over the course of the semester. But around day two, this immature person revealed her actual desire: to assert dominance over all members of the class by inserting herself into the authority position, usurping the leadership of even the professor in the power dynamic. She “suggested” that we all declare our pronoun. She explained that she was going by he/him (for now, of course — she wasn’t taking Testosterone: “he/him” was her feeling of the year) and would like to know what everyone else goes by. And OF COURSE, no one reacted. Not one of the WOMEN in the class or the WOMAN professor. I blinked. My gut flagged this display as an attempt to assert dominance and leverage control but I was caught so off guard that I was at a loss for words. Could the professor have denied this request? I mean … yes, of course. And so could I have. But I didn’t. I went right a-fucking-long and said, “she/her” as one by one, the class played a distorted version of “duck duck gray duck” chair by chair, woman by woman, force making its way around a circle that made a mockery of any kind of round table discussion.

And here’s why. Force it was. Forced speech. I was forced to speak. I didn’t need to declare my pronoun. No one in the room did. (Did I mention it was a women’s college at the time?) Yet each of us submissively displayed compliance to this request. In marked contrast, actually trans people want to present as the opposite gender so well, so authentically, that they no longer NEED to declare their gender. They want to pass as that gender — no questions asked. How do we know? Because trans people born male are PAYING MONEY to have their penises removed. I need to cry for a second. But fine. If that’s what they want to do, FINE. That’s freedom. But it’s NOT freedom when I am forced to speak, forced to declare the obvious in an obvious situation. Here’s what I wish I would have said:

“No. I’m not going to declare my pronoun. If you’re making a special request of me to call you by a specific pronoun, then I’m happy to oblige and use “him and he” because I would have thought you identified as a girl. So thank you, so much, for letting me know. So, to clarify, you are asking me, Sarah, to refer to you, _____, by him and he, is that right?”

And in response to further cries from the crib requests to declare my pronoun, if necessary, “you can use whatever words you want in reference to me – your perception of me has no bearing on my perception of me. If there is anyone in the room in doubt as to my gender identity, please, just go with your best guess.”

The depths of the collective cultural denial of reality that were required for everyone in that room to subserviently go along to get along are astounding to me. And I apologize to myself for not being ready for it. That will never happen again.

This is how far this movement to normalize the collective denial of reality has gone already:

These people want there to be NO genders at ALL, no defined categories. They’ll tell you they don’t want “labels” but they really don’t want any gender at all. And that is the stuff of a dystopian nightmare. I will blog further about what I see as a possible future if we continue to go down that path but for now, let me close with a little story about my parents, yes — the ones who met in a Las Vegas casino, my super liberal mom and super libertarian dad. They didn’t want me to feel forced into any gender stereotypes as they raised me so my childhood bedroom was decorated in all primary colors. No pink and no blue allowed. My sister, 12 years older than I am (and 12 at the time), got to pick everything out so she picked out wall art with bright bunches of balloons — orange, red, yellow and green, and cute white clouds, all fabric, to hang on the walls. The blanket was a bright bold red and the pillows were green and yellow (they put a twin bed in the room with the crib so that the room would be multipurpose from the get go). Somehow she got away with a fabric rainbow wall-hang because “a rainbow is an actual natural phenomenon in nature” (dad) and “it’s not pastel” (mom) so there was one stripe of blue in the room when the original rule was no pink or blue. Now, the carpet: it was fabulous shag magenta carpet (come on, it was 1981). I loved this carpet till the day I left at 18. My sister sold this to them as purple (yes, she grew up to be a lawyer) and they in turn had a long discussion about whether purple has a gender stereotype attached to it. (Sigh. I know.) Now, I was allowed to pick out the toys I wanted as a child and was never forced to play with anything or told I couldn’t play with anything. Guess what my favorite thing to do was? Play Black Jack or 500 or Gin with my mom — or games like Clue or Who Dunnit with whoever would play, and I love love LOVED the game Tripoley. I had some dolls and even though I liked Nintendo and was fairly good at it, I loved to watch my cousins rescue Princess Peach for HOURS (my one cousin could do every single level, no warp tunnels, in about 28 minutes — I couldn’t get past level 6). I’d beat anyone who’d play Duck Hunt against me hands down and my cousin and I would partner against my mom while playing Nintendo Jeopardy. No one told me I couldn’t shoot the Nintendo gun because I was a girl but interestingly, I hated playing any sports, HATED IT. I hated being outside, especially if it was cold, and I hated being on teams, so fricking much. I naturally gravitated toward activities that made me think, like reading, writing or games. I liked Barbies but got very bored very quickly unless I was creating an elaborate backstory for their lives. So there was no attempt to keep me from pursuing stereotypical “girl” activities. Nor was there any attempt to force me to pursue “boy” activities. When I was 15, my mom let me paint my whole room lilac and hang a poster of Brandon Lee from the Crow above my bed. It said, “Believe in angels.” (Best movie of ALL TIME — lol, the traditional gender roles! And the vengeance! And the violence! And the sex! Bahahahaha! My mom got a kick out of the results of their experiment: Give a child total freedom and exert no influence over their tastes and preferences and when that child grows into a 15 year old girl, she might still end up being filled with glee at the romance-based serial murder of anyone who threatens the eternal love of the main characters.)

Compare my parents to the parents of the newborn baby mentioned in the tweet above, the baby with no “gender marker” on its health card. My mom and dad were trying to avoid ridiculous societal limitations such as, “boys become doctors, girls become nurses” and “girls become paralegals and boys become lawyers” and they did a damn good job. But by denying a newborn baby a sex on its birth certificate, the parents in the tweet aren’t rejecting stereotypes or “traditional gender roles,” they are denying REALITY.

My parents did a good job despite their many flaws. They taught me to question the motivation behind every message: who is telling me to believe this? Why? What emotion is it designed to make me feel? What action is it designed to make me take? Who benefits? Who profits? Is it rooted in greed for power or greed for money or both? These are the questions we need to be asking ourselves regarding this bizarre movement mandating forced speech and the attempt to neuter society itself.

Tell @POTUS @realDonaldTrump: America & American Workers Must Come First in NAFTA Negotiations

***JUNE 13 UPDATE:  The US Trade Rep has extended the comment period until June 14th at midnight due to overwhelming response. Please continue reading for an easy copy/paste letter to submit online.***


The Trump administration is requesting public comments on what its NAFTA negotiating objectives should be. So lets flood the government with comments demanding a deal that puts jobs and families before CEO bonuses, and the American people & American workers first.



In July, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (@USTradeRep on twitter), which will lead the renegotiation talks, must reveal a detailed plan. And hundreds of corporate lobbyists will demand NAFTA become even worse for working people and the environment.


But thousands of comments from people like us (especially Berners, Trump supporters and Berner-turned-Trump train riders like myself) can drown the corporate demand that NAFTA become TPP 2.0. President Trump kept his campaign promise to pull the United States out of the TPP on his third full day in office! Let’s ask him and the US trade rep to keep his promise to fix NAFTA too. (Scroll down for a link to the comment page and an easy copy/paste script.)


Click here to submit public comments:

A sample letter is provided but feel free to add some of the statistics from my favorite tweets.



NAFTA Negotiations Docket USTR–2017–0006

(The text below is courtesy of Public Citizen Global Trade Watch – I’ve made a few changes to make it my own & it’s best if we all make some so that there aren’t thousands of identical comments. I especially changed the first paragraph because theirs left a lot to be desired. More #NAFTA tweets below this copy/paste portion.)

Renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement must stop NAFTA’s ongoing evisceration of the United States economy and replace it with a deal that benefits working people and the American economy, not just the profit margins of corporations. Five million manufacturing jobs have been lost since NAFTA was signed into law by President Clinton: that’s one in every four manufacturing jobs lost by an American worker.

Trans-Pacific Partnership  terms should not be added to any new NAFTA. President Trump said he’s against the TPP because it would hurt American workers and he formally withdrew the United States from TPP negotiations on his third day in office. So why does his Commerce Secretary say TPP is the starting place for NAFTA talks? The only way NAFTA will be “much better” for the US economy is if these criteria are met:

First, we need a transparent negotiating process. The original NAFTA and the TPP were negotiated behind closed doors with hundreds of corporate trade advisors included and the public and Congress excluded. As a result, those deals didn’t prioritize creating good jobs, raising wages or safeguarding our domestic policies. U.S.-proposed NAFTA texts and draft consolidated texts after each negotiating session must be made public. The corporate advisory system must be replaced by an on-the-record public process to get input on draft text during negotiations and comment on proposed final texts.

And we need to eliminate NAFTA’s foreign investor protections and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system, which promotes job offshoring and allows corporations to sue the U.S. government before tribunals of three corporate lawyers. NAFTA’s investor protections make it less risky and cheaper for U.S. firms to move offshore. Even the pro-NAFTA Cato Institute says ISDS subsidizes offshoring by lowering the risk premium of relocating. Instead of firms facing the cost of risk insurance, they rely on ISDS to make governments in low-wage nations pay them if they think their special NAFTA offshorers’ investor protections aren’t met. U.S. taxpayers not only lose jobs, but our laws, court rulings and government decisions and our Treasury are exposed to reciprocal ISDS attacks by foreign firms operating here. ISDS tribunals can order us to pay corporations unlimited sums, including for their “expected future profits.” Decisions cannot be appealed. More than $371 millions has been paid to corporations after ISDS attacks on the laws North Americans rely on for their health and safety. U.S. trade deals must not subsidize offshoring or threaten our sovereignty: ISDS must be eliminated from NAFTA.

We must also add strong, enforceable labor and environmental standards, not TPP’s weak rules. Since 2007, our trade deals have had labor and environmental standards in their core texts. These terms – also included in TPP – have proved ineffective. NAFTA talks must raise Mexican wages above the current $2 per hour so workers can support their families. The absence of effective wage, labor and environmental standards also incentives U.S. job offshoring and slams U.S. firms and workers with imports subsidized by environmental and social dumping. NAFTA renegotiation must level the playing field by conditioning trade benefits on adoption, implementation and maintenance in domestic law of the rights guaranteed by ILO’s Core Conventions and multilateral environmental treaties nations have signed – and evidence that conditions on the ground have actually improved. Obligations must be subject to the same enforcement and sanctions as all other terms. Benefits must be withdrawn for backsliding.

Imported food, goods and services must meet U.S. consumer and environmental standards. NAFTA requires us to import meat that does not meet U.S. standards and limits border inspection and food labelling. It requires trucks and drivers from Canada and Mexico that don’t meet U.S. standards to have access to all U.S. roads. These terms must be replaced with a simple rule: imported products and services must meet the same standards as domestic ones and all service providers operating here must comply with U.S. environmental, safety, professional qualification, and other laws and regs. And certainly TPP’s limits on financial, e-commerce and other service sector consumer safeguards shouldn’t be added.

We must eliminate the Buy American ban that offshores U.S. tax dollars. NAFTA forbids the use of “Buy American” and similar procurement policies and requirements that firms operating government call centers or other outsourced services employ U.S. workers. Every nation must be free to decide how spends its tax dollars. NAFTA’s procurement chapter should be eliminated.

We must eliminate rules that raise medicine prices. Among NAFTA’s most outrageous special interest terms are those that shield pharmaceutical firms from the market competition that brings down medicine prices for consumers. NAFTA’s existing medicine-price-gouging terms must be eliminated and no new patent or other protectionism for Pharma added.

And finally, we must stop the currency manipulation: All U.S. trade deals must have enforceable punishing consequences for currency manipulation by other countries.




Notice at 2:03, Ross Perot makes reference to factory workers making $13.00/hour in 1992. That’s $22.76 in today’s money or $47,000 a year.


Notice at 2:03, Ross Perot makes reference to factory workers making $13.00/hour in 1992. That’s $22.76 in today’s money or $47,000 a year.


Plus benefits. Paid time off. Pension. A secure retirement. Know how I always say we’re being divided and conquered? All the bullshit, all the left vs right, conservative vs liberal, red vs blue, black vs white, gay vs straight, feminist vs patriarchy — it’s all propaganda to distract us from the war on our economy. It’s not the 1%. It’s the top HUNDREDTH of the top one percent. Did you know that only 2% of Americans make more than $250,000 a year? Only 5% make more than a $100,000 a year. And that’s actually HOUSEHOLDS, not individuals. HALF of all Americans earn less than $30,000 a year! Is $47,000 sounding good to you right now? And how about no student loans? And no student loan payments? Let’s get really REALLY real. We’re being divided and conquered so that we are pitted against each other and too distracted to realize that we are being manipulated,  not just by people who are filled with greed for money, but filled with greed for power. Do you really think a $15 an hour minimum wage would be too high? $15 an hour would simply make those at that earning level no longer eligible for subsidized housing, medical and food (SNAP a.k.a. food stamps). It costs what it costs to live. Either the employer pays it or the taxpayer picks up the slack.

One in every four employed people worked in manufacturing in the 1960’s. Today it’s one in ten. We must ask ourselves why our iphones, our laptops, our clothing, our appliances, our cups, our butter dishes, for God’s sake — why are they all made in another country? Union jobs have the greatest pay equity between men and women and people who make more money SPEND MORE MONEY. Take a drive down your nearest main street or go out to the mall. See all those empty storefronts? Yeah. The “recovery.” You want a living wage, workers? Start a union, join a union, and learn about strikes. That is how you get more money in your paycheck. Learn everything you can about how an economy and its people are manipulated through false perceptions of scarcity, the concept and manufacture of “credit,” and the attempt to label time as money when money is really the human attempt to contain and assign value to time. The only way for some people to “make” money without exchanging time is for many others to give time without receiving any money.


Please take a moment to submit your comments to President Trump and his administration asking him to negotiate a trade agreement that benefits all of the American people!

Just Exactly How Compromised IS @Wikileaks? March 23rd “live” audio is clearly edited

Just how compromised is Wikileaks?

      1. We’ve never gotten the proof of life (proof that Julian Assange is still alive) that we asked for back in November of 2016. The options offered by Wikileaks in this tweeted poll were bad to begin with, but the fact that “video” had the highest number of votes was bizarre. A photograph of a person holding a newspaper printed that same day is the classic proof of life. Why stray from that? And an appearance on the balcony wasn’t even an option. Window appearance was silly – that could be anyone, and videos are alterable as well, especially those filmed against a green screen as the ones he subsequently provided, not the MSM videos, but the ones Julian provided, were. Any footage filmed of Julian where a green screen is being used fails to prove that he is still inside the Embassy and in fact would seem to increase the likelihood that he is no longer there (otherwise, why wouldn’t he just film himself sitting on the usual couch with Embassy Cat crawling all over him?).





Julian Assange’s Vault 7 press conference, filmed on March 9, was filmed against a green screen. There was (is) no telling where it took place. And, asked at 18:22 if there is “proof that the CIA is involved in an internal struggle, leaking as opposed to something else?” Julian answers affirmatively — click here to read my full body language and speech analysis of his extremely interesting response.



Then, sure enough, the very next Vault 7 press conference, broadcast via Periscope on March 23, bypassed the green screen issue and any further questions on the actual location from which it was filmed because periscopes are assumed to be live. But there was no video – just the wikileaks logo and the sound of Julian’s voice. But not even his voice was live. It could not have been. There is a blatant skip in the recording at 13:37: the moment he starts talking about the white hats inside the CIA and the internal division that is at the heart of a battle for our very republic (ok, Julian isn’t quite as poetic as I am … fast forward to 13:16 and listen for the blip at 13:37 and then read the transcription below).




If for some reason the periscope is deleted, here is the youtube video. I’ve transcribed Assange’s words below it; start listening at 7:55 and listen for the blip in audio and the complete change of subject at 8:17. (The periscope had a lag time at the start, the videos later uploaded to youtube removed the delay.)




Of course he just happened to have been talking about the internal division at the CIA — again, confirming that he is indeed witnessing internal division within the CIA involving inside leakers, not external hackers. I’ve transcribed his words:


“The Central Intelligence Agency is the largest intelligence agency in the world. Now, it’s an intelligence agen– it’s an organization with tens of thousands of people. Uh, there’s many good people in there. There’s internal divisions about some of the unethical practices, uh, that are being conducted, uh, and every country that wants to be independent and determine it’s own [BLIP IN THE RECORDING] CIA should be uh, broken into a thousand pieces and splintered to the wind because it had become so — it had gotten so out of control.”


He keeps going, commenting that secrecy breeds corruption. I disagree with that — I think corruption causes secrecy, but chicken/egg. That’s an argument for another day. What matters here is that Julian may have originally said something about specific unethical practices or perhaps the 81 elections in other countries that the CIA has attempted to influence, and so that part was edited out. Clearly, he wouldn’t have naturally gone from talking about the sovereignty of nation states to quoting JFK in such a disjointed fashion. Someone (very poorly) edited out a chunk of Julian’s speech and then started the “live” periscope using that audio.


Finally, I was taken aback by some of the remarks made by Assange during an interview conducted by Jeremy Scahill on his podcast, Intercepted, on April 18. Click here to listen to the podcast. Link will open in a new window. Or, read the transcript here.



Now, would you describe a woman who suggested you be executed via drone strike as “charismatic” and someone you’d probably like? Something doesn’t smell right. It’s an excellent interview & there’s a lot to be said for Julian’s sincere admiration of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and his understanding of press freedoms as protections from the government (negative rights as opposed to positive rights). But any complimentary language regarding Hillary Clinton is a huge red flag.


Note: On my April 16 episode of the Progressive Patriot Radio Show, I analyzed — sentence by sentence — Julian Assange’s voice and speech patterns during his March 9 press conference, when he was asked about whether or not the Vault 7 docs were the result of leaks or hacks, as well as CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s bizarre response a few days later.

The Biggest Thing You Missed from Wikileaks Vault 7: Body Language & Speech Analysis of Julian Assange

The most interesting thing about Vault 7? Nope, not the eavesdropping phone, hackable car, or spying microwave — it was this response from Julian Assange to a question tweeted at him during a virtual press conference.


Is there proof that the CIA is involved in an internal struggle, leaking as opposed to something else?



The video below is embedded to start at exactly 18 minutes and 22 seconds so you can see where he reads the question and “answers” it.




If you’ve read my previous body language/speech pattern analysis posts, you’ll recall the three elements of communication: 1) the words that are coming out of the person’s mouth (i.e. what they’re saying), 2) what they’re really saying, and 3)what they’re specifically not saying or trying not to say or omitting consciously or unconsciously — this third component is sometimes the most revealing.


For the sake of brevity, I’m only going to analyze this one question and the one answer Julian gave on March 9, 2017. I use all caps when a person, in this case Julian, unconsciously emphasizes a certain syllable or word in their speech. These are weak spots, places where their societal mask slips for a second. Julian Assange is unique: he has zero poker face and is a remarkably guile-less person for someone who is so hellbent on exposing the sins of others. This is usually the indicator of a person who really does have nothing to hide and whose motives are sincerely pure. Consider for a moment that before the first dump — I want to say the Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning leaks of the GTMO files and Iraq War logs — he asked the US State Dept to help him redact documents for national security purposes but the State Dept refused to in any way acknowledge Wikileaks as legit — until later, when they were forced to as a part of damage control. It’s very interesting. Many people recoil at the totally uncensored unredacted version of reality that wikileaks presents precisely because most people do have something to hide, or at least something that would make them feel bad or ashamed if it became public. Julian Assange doesn’t — at least his candid, almost childlike inability to self-censor, would lend itself to that conclusion.

(Full disclosure: I was very pleased with the Manning leaks as well as the DNC and Podesta email leaks but thought the CWA leaks were really over the top and unnecessary — and mean. So, I like true whistleblowing not pointless privacy violation.)


Julian reads a question from twitter: “Is there proof that the CIA are involved in internal struggle, leaking as opposed to [he pauses, he furrows his brow, he looks up] something else?”


“Uhhh, while … we can’t comment directly on sourcing [HE NODS HIS HEAD UP AND DOWN — lol], as someone who’s studied the behavior of intelligence agencies for many years in different countries, it is an unusual time in the United States to see an intelligence agency so prominently involved [this is the best – he looks away then quickly back, emphasizing the syllable VOLVED in involved] in domestic politics. Now, as a sort of lev-level of PRINCIPLE, that’s quite problematic. There are arguments on the other side that — obviously — if there’s an extreme … uh, government, uh, then perhaps that does call for … illegal behavior … uh, by an intelligence agency. Uh, we don’t have an opinion uh, on whether or not that is the case. Yet. We’re not the United States. Uh, Wikileaks is, um, in- I guess, in- intellectually inTRIGUED to see this conflict occurring, uh, because it does tend to generATE whistleblowers and sources on both sides of the equation.”


This was an easy one. Assange answered it affirmatively in multiple ways, but I bolded the clearest yes. The question was, is there a struggle? And Julian said Wikileaks see[s] this conflict occurring. But he first answered the question right off the bat by nodding his head repeatedly while saying he can’t comment directly on sourcing. So the words coming out of his mouth were neither a yes nor a no, but his body – his right brain, the truthteller and confessor – wanted the asker of this intellectually intriguing question to know, YES, and you hit the nail on the head! And by the way, not only do we see this conflict occurring, the conflict is generating sources on BOTH sides of the equation.


Note the use of the word source. Now if you saw the recent Comey hearing where the FBI Director confirmed to a member of Congress that it is not illegal for a member of the intel committee (Senators or Representatives on the panel) to lie to the news media the second they walk out of a closed hearing, even though all the other members of congress who were present will know that one of them has lied to the media after the evening news or morning paper comes out, then you know that fake news is LITERALLY fake news on these special occasions.



AND it’s also not illegal for members of the intel community (those “anonymous officials” cited by the media) to lie to the media. So there are two streams leading to the pool of fake news (two sources): the IC members themselves or the members of congress who are briefed by them (usually under oath — maybe the media should start requiring their sources to swear under oath before accepting the leaks of unsubstantiated unverifiable claims). So when Assange says source, and he’s answering a question about a good vs evil battle within the CIA, and he’s contrasting sources and whistleblowers on both sides, he’s signally (unconsciously) that there are sources who are good and sources who are … not good, and may be providing bad intel for bad reasons.


Now let’s look at part of Julian’s statement more closely:

“It is an unusual time in the United States to see an intelligence agency so prominently involved [he looks away then quickly back, emphasizing the syllable VOLVED in involved] in domestic politics.”

This is a nonstatement on its face: an unusual time? Is there ever a usual time for an intelligence agency to be involved in domestic politics? No. But those are the words coming out of his mouth. But that’s not what he’s *really* saying. He’s really saying two things: 1) that it’s an unusual time in the United States (!), and 2) that he sees AN intelligence agency prominently involved in domestic politics. And notice his interesting eye movement on “involved.” Then close your eyes and listen to that sentence again.


He says it the way you warn a friend who arrives unexpectedly at your front door that the person they’ve been trying to avoid is in your living room RIGHT NOW by mentioning their name out of context while looking in the direction of said living room. “Get it?” Julian is saying. “InVOLVED?!?” For all we know, someone from AN intelligence agency *is* right there in his living room. Which leads me to the next bizarre thing Mr Mumbler says … (sorry, Julian, but sometimes you really do give an amateur speech pattern analyst a run for her money).


“Uh, we don’t have an opinion uh, on whether or not that is the case. Yet. We’re not the United States.” Ok, Julian, we know you’re not the United States. We know Wikileaks is not the United States. So then why does he feel compelled to clarify that, or declare it, as it were? Plus he could have an opinion on a potential battle existing inside the CIA regardless of whether or not Wikileaks is involved with the United States. Now, we can’t really know unless he tells us why but the important thing to notice for our purposes is that he side-eyed on inVOLVED and … hey, everybody, Wikileaks is not the United States. Ok?? So even if they somehow used a macrame invisibility poncho to get into the room with him, he, Julian Assange, is still saying what he wants to say. Ok?? Okey dokey.


Finally, he mentions that he is intellectually inTRIGUED by the conflict inside the CIA, this internal struggle that he is SEEing. That is not (probably) what he intended to say because he probably didn’t mean to confirm that one exists. But we know that when someone answers using the same word (or a synonym) that was used in the question (as with “struggle” and “conflict,”) that they are being generally nonevasive – in other words, if he avoided any use of the word or avoided the topic of internal struggle altogether, it would more likely that he was being untruthful. This was yet another way he answered this question affirmatively.


And notice the word “intrigue” popping out of his mouth to say, “hai hai!” He can’t help but to use and say this word. Why? Because it means collusion, conspiracy or subterfuge. He could have used any word to express how intellectually interested or fascinated he was with the prospect of an internal struggle inside the CIA, a battle between patriots and traitors, warriors & election meddlers. But his truth-teller right brain picked “intrigued”!

Very intellectually intriguing indeed.





Strawberry Bread – Recipe & Pics

Strawberry bread! It’s like banana bread — in fact, it’s even made with bananas — but instead of being cloyingly sweet like banana bread, it’s moist, moderately sweet, and chewy because of the delicious dried strawberries. And, if you WANT it to be super sweet, simply use very very brown and ripe bananas, and voila! But that version I would call “strawberry banana bread” versus what this is, strawberry bread that is made with bananas.


If you WANT it to be super sweet, simply make sure the bananas are very very brown and ripe, and voila!


Here is the recipe I originally made, my thoughts, and the feedback I got from my INTJ boss lady (who is of course, a masterful cook herself) and three coworkers. (I’m INFJ — what? You’re 0.0% shocked???)


Ingredients! YES, only FOUR!



3 yellow (not rotting, zombie, fly-infested, bruised) bananas

3 small or 2 large eggs

1 box of white cake mix

1  4oz package of dried strawberries



Preheat the oven to 350 F. Mash the bananas till they’re totally disgusting and gooey and look like elephant mucus and then mix the eggs in, until the bowl is filled with an even grosser looking concoction of what definitely resembles bodily fluids. Then pour in the cake mix — just dump it all in otherwise you’ll over mix it and the bread will be tough. Mix thoroughly and add the small bag of dried strawberries and give it a good stir to evenly incorporate the strawberries (if you are not a total brat like some people who get a craving for a certain food and then don’t want to spend extra time on making it, chop the strawberries until they’re minced before stirring them in). Then pour the batter into an ungreased (or, fine, grease it if you want to) loaf pan. Here’s exactly how I baked it and it came out perfectly:

42 minutes — checked it, not set on top

Another 10 minutes — looked good but still too soft when I pushed gently on the top

5 minutes later, knife inserted in the center came out perfectly clean.

My oven is exactly the right temperature so when I make this again, I’ll probably check at 52 minutes and again at 55 with the knife.


After 57 minutes in a 350 degree oven.


Now I LOVE pinterest and I love banana bread … but I love strawberries more, and if you know anything about pinterest, you know that it’s very easy to fall down a rabbit hole quickly. One thing leads to another — you’ve gone from banana bread to strawberry banana bread to strawberry pudding to butterscotch pudding to jello to hello dolly in ten seconds and you wonder if you accidentally fell through a Narnia portal into an abyss of non sequiter pins. BUT FEAR NOT — the search bar remembers what you were actually looking for and it’s easy to get back!! So during one of these click-bait adventures, I saw a recipe for “cake mix banana bread” which only required one box of yellow cake mix, 2 large eggs, 3 bananas, stir, pour, bake, etc. I thought, Wow, I hate yellow cake. It’s so gross. I bet that tastes like banana yellow cake. Ick. So I simply moved on, and that’s when I saw a strawberry cake mix recipe – exactly the same additional ingredients, but instead of yellow cake mix, strawberry. Now, again, I’ve had “strawberry” cake mix before and it doesn’t taste like strawberry at all. It tastes … pink. Or like strawberry gum. It’s okay but I wanted the taste of real strawberries. Now, I did see a recipe that called for adding a few tablespoons of strawberry jam to the recipe I modified (so made with yellow cake mix instead of white) and I’m glad I did not add that, because I really liked the taste of the bread I ended up with and so did most everyone who tried it (4 out of 5, including me).




Me: UMMM, I like this, yum. OMG the butter is melting and drizzling off the bread onto my fingers, oh God, this is so good. I think I’ll add half a cup of brown sugar next time.

Me after it cooled completely the next day — without butter: Ummm, this would be really good with lemon curd on it. I love the bites with the dried strawberries — next time I’ll try it with TWO packages of dried strawberries and mince them. (Notice I did not have the same thought about adding brown sugar the next day. Why? Does anyone know why?)

Once I got to work …

Boss: This is good but how ripe were the bananas?

Me: They were yellow – I don’t like them mushy, so it’s more like strawberry bread than strawberry banana bread. (Contemplative pause.) You don’t like it.

Her: I do. I like the dried strawberries.

Me: I don’t like how frozen strawberries turn everything red and I didn’t want pink bread.

Her: Yes, the dried strawberries are a really nice touch.

Me: I couldn’t get the loaf to come out of the pan so I had to bring it with.

Her: Next time let it cool just fifteen minutes before you cut around the sides and it will slide right out.


Enter our resident hipster foodie musical-lover (INTJ escapes my further analysis of her microexpressions):

Him: Sarah. (pause) I tried the bread. (pause pause) It’s great. GREAT. Moist. Really suave. Loved it.

Me: you did?? you didn’t think it wasn’t banana-y enough?

Him: No. Perfect. Light. I LOVE the strawberries. They’re dried?

Me: Yes, I just mixed in a small pouch of dried strawberries because I didn’t want pink bread.

Him (before vanishing back into a windowless room he lights up with his soul): Good. Job.


Enter my Boomer friend who is a great baker and who was skeptical about making a bread with a cake mix when I told her about the pinterest recipe I’d seen the day before.

Her: Sarah, I love it! It’s great! I had a substantial chunk.

Me: Wouldn’t it taste so good with lemon curd? (admittedly, yes, that was random – I basically like my sweet bread the way I like my ice cream — Ben and Jerry-rigged)

Her: Ahhh, I wouldn’t say lemon curd but maybe toasted with a little butter or almond butter.

Me: … or maybe strawberry jam?

Her: Actually, it’s exactly right the way it is, plain. It needs nothing. So did you use a cake mix??

Me: Yes! I used a white cake mix instead of yellow, and used dried strawberries instead of frozen.

Her: great idea! I’m amazed that the cake mix tastes so good. I would have thought the old fashioned way would have tasted better — I can’t tell the difference. Wow! Good job!

(Me: speechless I was so glad she liked it — her chocolate cake tastes like it comes fedexed from an enchanted Mayan realm of cocoa bliss through a space-time interruption pipe)


Enter my fellow Millennial who is a self described picky eater:

Her: I really liked the parts where I couldn’t taste the banana.

Me: You couldn’t taste the banana in some parts?

Her: I bit into a chunk of banana and I didn’t like that part but the rest – Sarah – it was good.

Me: You didn’t think you would like it?

Her: No.

Me: You liked the dried strawberries?

Her: Yes.

Me: YAY!!!

(note to self: next time I make it, I will completely blend the batter in the blender or mixer so there are no banana chunks if I’m bringing it to work)



VERDICT: Suave as charged.

Everyone loved the dried strawberries. No one could tell it was made with cake mix instead of the old fashioned way.

Suave. Hipster coworker captured the essence of this recipe. This bread would be a great gift to someone you want to give a unique food present to, such as a teacher or good friend or sister or aunt … it’s the Anthropologie of bread: it seems unusual when taken altogether but each individual part is familiar if you look closely. If you want it to be a comfort food bread, make sure the bananas are all very very ripe and sweet, and you have strawberry banana bread! (And maybe add that fourth a cup of strawberry preserves or jam.)


Final thoughts: This bread would be really nice as a light dessert with butter spread on top along with a glass of rose while enjoying the cool breeze on a summer picnic … in an enchanted strawberry forest. If you make it, I would love to know your thoughts!

What is Pizzagate? Is Pizzagate real? Why do Pizzagate researchers keep disappearing?

If you’re new to the Pizzagate controversy/conspiracy theory, suffice it to say that this blogpost is going to be a very superficial FAQ. In other words, the equivalent of the paragraph synopsis of the course description of Pizzagate 101. Why? Because I don’t feel like writing about these (allegedly) sick sadistic psychopaths and never wanted to muck up my blog with even one reference to their existence … until David Seaman deleted all his videos – ALL OF THEM, EVEN THE ONES THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PIZZAGATE, even his bitcoin/gold sound money, anti-fiat currency videos — off youtube,  vidme and vimeo. So who is David and why does that matter? He’s a socially liberal, fiscally libertarian journalist and news analyst who has created at least a video a day since the Podesta emails were released by WikiLeaks in the run-up to election day last year. And he focused heavily on the pizzagate scandal. On the morning of Saturday, Feb 25, 2017, he released a video explaining that he’d taken down his twitter after being ruthlessly trolled by readers of a hit piece that appeared on Buzzfeed news to smear David’s excellent reputation on a multitude of social media platforms. This piece insinuated that David is a liar,  and — get this — claims that youtube unfairly allows its broadcasters to reach many viewers with content. Really. David said in this (final?) video that he needed to focus on his health, and that immediately made me think back to Ben Swann, another pizzagate researcher who suddenly stopped creating video content on youtube. Swann posted a cryptic message about “those who know me, trust me” in a pinned tweet before he went completely dark, deleted his twitter, facebook and youtube and DISAPPEARED FROM THE INTERNET.  Sure enough, later that day, all of David’s videos were gone too.


So who is Ben Swann? A mainstream media journalist, of all occupations. Ben Swann investigated many controversial topics, such as US involvement in Syria, while at the same time, holding down the desk anchor teleprompter reading night job at a CBS affiliate in Atlanta, GA. And this affiliate was so progressive that they allowed him to research and deliver a “Reality Check” segment once a week where he could present the facts on a unique subject of his choice, and one week in January of 2017, that unique subject was pizzagate. Now the original video was deleted, but as you know, the internet is forever. Here it is:



If you didn’t have time to watch it, the gist of it is this: while there are no mentions of any child sex trafficking ring, or even pedophilia, in the WikiLeaks emails between super lobbyist John Podesta and many other people, there are multiple references to what may or may not be a code language that refers to children in a sexualized way, and there are multiple references to Comet Ping Pong pizza (whose slogan is Play Eat Drink – yeah, PED), which is owned by James Alefantis (who has a surname that was made up at some point in the last 100 years — verify that for yourself here through Ancestry’s name search tool, then try a normal not made up last name, for example, Reynolds or Thomas, and you will see a legit last name that goes back hundreds of years, as a family name should). Now, James has an instagram, handle @jimmycomet, with so many photos so disturbing that Ben Swann declares them unfit for broadcast on television. Yes, the nightly news that regularly shows images of war, robbery, shooting, fighting and death — that nightly news. These instagram images posted by the owner of Comet Ping Pong Pizza are too disturbing to be broadcast at 6:00 pm. On the news. I’m only going to embed one in this blog post because it’s so fucking fucked up but this little girl is the reason I’m going to start making videos on Pizzagate.


Click on the photo to read a more detailed blog post on the pizzagate scandal


Ben also talked about the 2007 FBI document that shows which symbols correspond to which type of predator’s preference, and notes that Besta Pizza (2 doors down from Comet Ping Pong) has a logo that has one of these pedophilia symbols right in the middle of the logo. And as soon as this interesting detail made the rounds on the internet, Besta changed their logo to remove the symbol. Just a coincidence? Please. And bizarre violent art (with images of decapitated people) “decorates” the wall of this “family friendly” restaurant. And a band called “Sex Stains” with the same symbol that was removed from the Besta Pizza logo in their videos regularly performs live at Comet Pizza.


So all Ben called for in this particular Reality Check was an investigation; he closes the segment with, “the big question here is why hasn’t any investigation taken place?” Days later he was gone. Disappeared from youtube and all other social media (his Wikipedia page is still up, however, unlike David Seaman’s).


Now, Ben didn’t even scratch the surface (and he uses that exact phrase) due to the constraints of television, and one of the most crucial details he didn’t mention is all the times that foods that are known code words used to refer to children are mentioned in the Podesta Emails. It’s bleak – just too fucking horrifying for words. But David DID. He fearlessly and tirelessly provided updates and correctly predicted, based on a tip from a source he referred to as being within the intelligence community, that a major arrest would happen in the next 24 hours the day before convicted pedophile Jerry Sandusky’s son Jeffrey was arrested for the same thing. David knows his stuff, and if you’re familiar with the Goliath story, you know how this will end. (David, please come back to twitter as soon as you can … everyone else, please donate to his patreon in case he is in need of a lawyer or just a vacation from all the darkness and horror.)


If you are searching for more answers or details, a Pizzagate 202, so to speak, a youtuber named Marty Leeds made this video he calls a Pizzagate Primer. It’s over an hour long but it is by far the best compilation of all the clues and references to known euphemisms so far.




(Update  from 2018, Marty Leeds’ channel was terminated by YouTube. Luckily a different channel has uploaded the video so you can watch it here:)



FINALLY, take heart. Law enforcement is on it. Watch this DHS public service announcement. The camera pauses on the neon PIZZA sign while telling us, the viewer, “The signs are everywhere. Sometimes you just have to take a second look!”



The situation is well in hand; it is most likely a matter of time, patience, and building a bulletproof case. FBI Director Comey stood up to Donald Rumsfeld years ago, back when Comey was acting Attorney General, regarding continuing an unsavory, likely unconstitutional, special access program at Guantanamo during the Bush/Cheney regime. This is not a man who is afraid of the elite or their “circle of friends” or any other VIP’s who talk about flying in thousands of dollars worth of pizza and hotdogs from Chicago for everyone to enjoy or who email each other about which would be better, playing dominoes on cheese or pasta. And our complete set of balls president, President Donald Trump, publicly declared on Feb 23, 2017 that all the child traffickers are to be rounded up and arrested, that his goal is to end human trafficking. So watch that PSA again. Because the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI are telling us something in this brief spot: the signs are everywhere.



Join me live at 10 PM central time every Sunday night on Blog Talk Radio for more. And guard your heart! Darkness feeds off hate. Law enforcement needs our faith in them and our desire for justice to be served. And so do those children.

Trump Visits Obama at the White House: Body Language/Speech Analysis + Bonus Trump Admin Predictions

First we’ll cover the White House meeting, then in the second part, Trump’s 11/21/16 announcement regarding the status of his transition team’s progress.


If this is the first body language/speech analysis post of mine you’ve ever read, a brief re-cap: the 3 things I’m looking/listening for are 1) what’s being said (the words coming out of Trump and Obama’s mouths), 2) what’s really being said (in other words, what they really mean when they say something, and 3) what’s not being said, also described as, what has been left unsaid. And usually it’s that third component that’s most revealing.


For those wondering, well, ok, but what is your bias? Surely whether or not you like these men personally will influence how you interpret what you see and hear? Yes, it’s probably true that my feelings toward them will affect my perception of their words/actions in this short video. So, full disclosure: I voted for Obama twice and Trump once (so far).


They start interacting at 1:03 in the video below, and the footage flips back to George Stephanopoulos at 4:18.



Now, lets start with the 1:05 freeze frame. Interestingly, Trump is sitting in a slightly smaller chair. Both men are doing the man-spread “I am a dominant male” posture with their legs open. Then President Obama says, “Well, I just had the opportunity to have an excellent conversation with president-elect Trump” — and the word “well” here is significant. The use of the word well means that he’s conceding or admitting, it actually was excellent and that he wasn’t expecting it to be.


But now look at Trump’s hands while Obama is speaking, specifically from 1:04 – 1:17. His hands are in a pensive, self-steadying pose, but his fingers tap each other intermittently, and at 1:14 he looks away from Obama and starts to open his mouth as if to speak, then he closes it at 1:15. I’ll tell you what this means: it means that he’s thinking about something that just happened, immediately preceding the cameras and the press entering the room. So he’s either recalling something that he was just told or something he just saw, and whatever it was, it was so significant that he’s still thinking about it now and at the same time, concentrating on what President Obama is saying. Now Trump is a classic alpha male, an alpha’s alpha so to speak (Obama is a sigma male and maybe I’ll do more analysis of him later) and so it’s likely a very simple and practiced task for Trump to listen to what people are saying in conversation and mull something over simultaneously. Still, it’s telling that he is tapping his fingers like that. Whatever it was, it wasn’t something pleasant. But, by the time he looks back at Obama at 1:17, he has his fingers firmly pressed together and his face is set. This is the facial expression you will see on an alpha male when they have come to a decision. Who knows what the decision was? But notice that the tapping of his fingers — an unconscious indicator of indecision — stops.


At 1:20 the camera zooms in on President Obama and we see him warmly gesture toward Trump several times on the words or phrases “coming 2 months” and “transition” and “ensure” and “president elect” and “successful.” These are inclusive hand gestures and we can determine that they are sincere because President Obama unconsciously gestures closer and closer to Trump with each word. I will briefly make the case that Obama is not sad that Hillary lost (his body language toward Trump makes it crystal clear, but my argument here deals with Hillary and Obama’s personal history). First, let’s recall that President Obama and Hillary were not and are not friends. And for those who think that Obama appointed Clinton to the State Department because he liked her, I present an alternate view. What better way to get that final jab in, after a bitter prolonged primary contest in 2007, than to hire your rival to work for you so that not only did you defeat them resoundingly in a public display of dominance, you take it a step further by making them your employee so that every day they go to work, they have to wake up in the morning knowing you are their boss? Yeah, Obama is the ultimate player. (Hey, don’t hate the player, hate the game.)


With that in mind, it wasn’t surprising to me that there wasn’t a hint of animosity coming from Obama toward Trump in this video. Obama is probably of two minds on the Trump victory: ambivalence is all over his impassive face (especially indicated by the limited amount of eye contact he makes with Trump, which we’ll get to momentarily). The reason he keeps talking about the country, and doing what’s best for the country (he says it’s his “number one priority”) might be because he isn’t actually sure that Hillary wouldn’t have been worse for us. In other words, Obama most likely didn’t want Trump to win because he doesn’t personally like the birth certificate brew ha-ha that Trump promoted and at the same time, he knows Hillary is deeply corrupt (google “state department pay to play hillary clinton foundation” or read all about her corruption here) and, as Obama pointed out so perceptively in 2008, “Hillary Clinton will say anything and change nothing.”


Do you doubt that Obama is not nearly as upset about Hillary’s defeat as Hillary and her weeping followers are? Watch this (it’s embedded to start right at 8:39 – stop after the press laugh at Biden’s joke a few moments later). Now, was that a man who is sad that his replacement is DJT? Was that the voice and facial expression of a man who feels sorrow over Hillary’s loss? Note the jovial manner with which he compliments VP Biden at 8:40 for never having lost an election before. If I had more time, I’d do an analysis on this video alone. Suffice it to say, there is most likely a tiny part of Obama that is filled with glee that Hillary lost after everything — one dirty lowdown smear campaign after another — she hurled at him back in the ’08 Dem primary.


Back to the Obama-Trump meeting. When, at 1:40, President Obama says, “I have been very encouraged by the interest in President-elect Trump’s wanting to work with my team around many of the issues this great country faces,” he’s not only encouraged, he’s happily surprised. His word choice here, again, indicates that Trump approached him with an inquisitive, “teach me what you’ve learned” attitude, and Obama is glad. (Also, try closing your eyes and listening to him say “my team” — the pitch of his voice goes up a bit; this means that his team is comprised of people that he deeply loves and cherishes; please notice that his pitch goes up on “great country faces” too.) It’s not really surprising that Trump would ask Obama for advice though. As an alpha, Trump knows instinctively that one strategy to master a task (or role) is to learn from the challenges, regrets, and mistakes of others so that they don’t become his mistakes and regrets. (As a wise fortune cookie sage once wrote, “Intelligence is learning from your mistakes; wisdom is learning from other people’s.”) There were likely a lot of, “what did you do when …?” and “what do you wish you had done differently when _____ happened?” type questions from Trump to Obama. And Obama’s words and tone here indicate both encouragement and relief.


Now, let’s look at President Obama’s hands between 1:29 and 1:55. Notice that whenever his hands come back together he either a) steeples them casually as in 1:08, 1:15, and 1:20 or b) he tucks his left hand into his right hand so that his right hand conceals his left hand’s fingers, as in 1:29, 1:45, and 1:50. The first gesture is a practiced signal to convey that he is calm, cool Barack and the second is an unconscious indicator of anxiety. It’s literally hand-ringing, which is a self-comforting motion. Who knows what he’s worried about? I imagine the list is quite long when you’re president. It would be more odd if he had no anxiety indicators — what is he, a robot? No, he’s a human being emotionally influenced by the domino effect of every single decision he makes. (We’ll see if Trump’s hair doesn’t have a few patches of silver in 8 years. Maybe he won’t and that would be cool — however, I wouldn’t judge him negatively for it if he did.)


Now at 2:41, Obama looks at Trump and makes eye contact with him as he says, “I want to emphasize to you” but then, as he continues to speak, he lowers his gaze, then looks away, then looks back, but keeps his gaze lowered. The camera zooms out, and Trump, still looking at Obama, waiting for Obama to re-make eye contact, finally looks away and toward the press at 2:50. First, I think that Obama is very distracted by the constant noise of the cameras flashing — it’s extremely loud. Second, I think Obama is trying to remember some memorized lines. Notice how much more comfortable he is at the very end when he’s joking around about the press with Trump (at 4:02). And finally, as I mentioned before, the lack of eye contact also indicates feeling of two minds (or two emotions) toward Trump: Obama can’t help but like him because most likely, Trump greeted him (earlier in the day, prior to the cameras rolling) with a “let’s let bygones be bygones” disarming kind of alpha introduction and handshake. Obama was probably prepared for hostility — genuine warmth was not what he expected at all (which is why it’s so disarming and why alphas use it as a strategy. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer by turning them into assets.) Trump nods in genuine agreement as Obama says, “We now are gonna want to do everything possible to help you succeed because if you succeed, then the country succeeds.” Then he hands the floor over to Trump.


Now, there are two Trumps. Trump from the Apprentice and the real Donald Trump (which is why it’s so fitting that his twitter handle is @realDonaldTrump). Trump from the Apprentice sits as if he’s sitting on a throne — always. Without exception. His posture commands respect and to some degree, fear.



Real Trump always hunches a little bit forward, as he does throughout the majority of this scene with President Obama. And if you watch him in the interview on 60 Minutes with his whole family, again, he hunches forward, and I believe that this is to obscure his stature so that no one feels threatened or relegated to the background (I’ve seen many alpha males do this; if you go onto youtube, you can see videos of both the CIA and FBI directors sitting in a very similar way: slightly slouching even, in order to make the interviewer feel less uncomfortable.) At the same time, Trump doesn’t hesitate to use his stature to command respect when appropriate — the Anderson Cooper “backstage” interview comes to mind. Fascinatingly, when Trump was on the campaign trail, he seldom evoked the king posture, but by using expansive hand gestures, he still made the people around them feel as if they were in the presence of the classic “benevolent ruler” archetype. This is a strategy to make people feel enveloped in safety without actually touching them. And Trump is really good at it.


Now watch Trump’s hands as he begins to speak at 2:56 (and notice that Obama is watching him intently. Obama has a good poker face but look closely, and you will see pleasant surprise in his expression). All of a sudden at 3:01, Trump remembers he should do something with his hands. As noted earlier, Trump is a classic alpha male — an alpha’s alpha — and they know intuitively that hands speak and worse, tell secrets, and so they start practicing early in life holding their hands still. But they’re also brilliant strategists; this means that it’s likely that Trump would have sat down and brainstormed various hand motions that would be useful in conveying an honest and trustworthy persona long before that fateful escalator descent announcing his candidacy, and then begun practicing them prior to his campaign so that they would come across as naturally as possible. So it’s fun for me to see the two Donald Trumps fight each other for dominance in this last bit of footage. He has probably been doing the common hands-steepled-together pose since his 20’s; it’s steadying, nonthreatening, calming to whoever he’s interacting with, and conveys a thoughtful reflective (not impulsive) person. Good. Meanwhile, it appears, some of the hand motions that he added to his body language arsenal, pre-campaign, pop up from time to time: at 3:02 when he brings his hands out and then together, and then back out again (signaling that he is putting things together, that he has a hold on the or a situation): at 3:22, he says, “we discussed a lot of situations,” and then, almost as an afterthought, as if he is reminding himself to use his hands again, Trump says, “some wonderful and some difficulties” and he brings his hands together with the palms up to show that he is holding the situation up, that is to say, “handling it.” I LOVE how at 3:11, after stating that originally Trump and Obama were only going to meet for 15 minutes, Trump reveals, “the meeting lasted for” — he looks warmly at Obama — “almost an hour and a half.” Now, this is old school alpha rapport-building technique: he is glancing at Obama as if to say, “let’s tell them, shall we?” as though he and Obama are letting us in on a little bit of gossip, a tidbit we otherwise would never have known about: the audience or viewers then feel special, invited, accepted, enveloped in the Trump cocoon. The secret is now between Trump and Obama — and 330 million American people. We’re ALL in. This is how alphas make everyone in the tribe feel valuable and accepted.


At 3:22, he says they discussed a lot of situations, “some wonderful and some difficulties” and again, his hands come together with the palms up to show us that he is holding up any problems, that he is “handling” it. Then no hand motions again until at 3:43, when he remembers to incorporate the 3-fingered OK symbol when saying that he and Obama discussed some of the “really great things that have been achieved.” At 3:53, they shake hands and neither man attempts to dominate the other. THIS IS GOOD. Trump has his lips pressed together in the facial expression that suggests that he is willing to acknowledge that Obama is a cooler guy than he thought (or in some way, better than he’d originally thought). Now, the handshake is very quick, suggesting residual bad feelings on both sides, so let’s acknowledge that too. At the same time, the way that they make eye contact as they shake signals that they each accept the other’s appeal to millions of people.


And, in an interesting display of camaraderie at 4:02, Obama taps Trump on the arm and says, “it’s always a good rule: don’t answer any questions when they just start –” and Trump smiles and jokes, “it’s always the last one!”




Then Obama lets the press know he’s done with them and they are free to leave by saying, “no questions” and “come on, guys, let’s go” (the song, “Closing Time” comes to mind) and at 4:10, Trump says, “very — very good man.” Then he repeats it (“very good man”) and looks down and to the right, as if he’s recalling something he was told recently about President Obama. I conclude that this is ultimately good; a president is only one man and the whole purpose of Congress and the Courts is to stop that man if he tries to go farther than the people want. To see Obama or Trump as either all good or all bad is simply not accurate, and so I look forward to learning what it was that Obama did specifically that Trump was referring to when he said, “very good man” twice.



Some of you are aware that I predicted back in October of 2014 that Hillary could not and would not win this election and that that was why we needed to start finding a viable alternative back then (and I suggested Bernie Sanders).

I do enjoy making predictions.

Even when I’m wrong! That said, here goes:


  1. Trump will negotiate with CEO of Apple (in 2017) and some i-phones will eventually be manufactured in the USA.
  2. Trump will further walk back remarks on torture. I believe this will happen very soon after he’s sworn in, after he speaks with DNI Clapper and CIA Director Brennan. (Let me know in the comments if you would like a post on the Brennan-Trump feud going back to this past summer. Two alpha males circling each other at the CIA? Get out your macrame invisibility poncho and hop on the DARPA cloud — wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall to witness that first meeting?? All kidding and teleporting aside, I predict that it will end well, and that the Iran Deal will be salvaged too after Trump is let in on the less public details. Briefly: alphas are human lie detectors, value loyalty above all other traits, and are extremely protective of “their people.” Once John Brennan and Donald Trump realize they have more in common than not, they will get along amazingly well. They should each give each other a chance, at the very least.)
  3. Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) will be repealed and replaced in January 2017. It will keep the option to have coverage through one’s parents’ plan for people up to age 26, keep the rule that insurers cannot deny coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition, but repeal the requirement that employers offer health insurance to all full time workers, providing a huge boon to the economy as companies and especially retail stores/companies, offer full time opportunities to their employees again. (If we’re going to go true free market solution, we’ll have to disconnect the purchase of health insurance with employment — in other words, remove the burden on employers and allow insurers to sell to anyone in any state in order to break up the regional cartels, driving down prices in order to reduce the burden on consumers as well. I just took Microecon over the summer and am taking Macro right now, so these free market solutions are on my mind. And of course, fellow Berners, I remain a staunch fan of a Single Payer National Health Care System; I’m simply open to multiple ways of solving the problem of people not getting the health care they need.)
  4. The House will pass a law repealing Medicare and it will narrowly, with in 5 votes, lose in the Senate in 2018.
  5. The House and Senate will keep a Republican majority until 2020, when the Senate will turn Dem majority.
  6. Trump will win re-election in 2020; Minnesota will go red for the first presidential election since 1972.
  7. NAFTA will not be significantly altered until Trump’s second term — but then it will be gutted (to the benefit of both the American and Mexican people; remember that comparative advantage, the economic theory upon which these unethical “free” trade agreements are based, means an advantage for the ruling and corporate classes, not the People).


Obama Trump


I’d love to hear your thoughts! Please comment below or tweet at me at @Sarah__Reynolds.


Blatant CIA Recruiting Propaganda: Chuck (leaving Netflix Nov 1)

Where does entertainment end and the manufacture and broadcast of blatant government recruiting infomercials under the guise of independently produced TV shows begin? I attempt to explore this gray area in a textual analysis of the pilot episode of the show Chuck that I wrote for a Communicating Across Cultures class I took at St Catherine University. You’ll find additional commentary below the works cited.



Who is behind the creation of television shows like Chuck that glorify the lifestyle of state sponsored espionage, assassination, and adventure?  The writers of the show, Chris Fedak and Josh Schwartz, have a history of creating action-adventure fare, but this unique niche whose neighbors include Alias, MacGyver and 24 is comprised of territory they were entering for the first time in 2007 when the pilot aired on NBC. In an interview, they claimed they were inspired by the humor of the movie Spies Like Us, and it’s apparent throughout the pilot that the audience is indeed viewing a comedy as much as an espionage thriller (2009). But while the show’s creators may be two young guys new to the industry and upon whom a lucky star shines — a star that connects their writing to the best directors and network to showcase it — Chuck’s institutional purpose is likely much more layered and nuanced.



The foundation of the show is upper middle class America in a post-9/11 world; not the the realm of blissful ignorance of current events amidst the combination of fake smiles and socioeconomic prosperity that emanates from other shows to the average living room on Must See TV night, but a realm of fake smiles, hyper-beautiful people and socioeconomic prosperity that does — specifically — acknowledge world conflict and international affairs. Layer two is the introduction of Chuck himself, a nerd we can all relate to because he is not nerdy at all. Instead, he’s socially savvy, witty, and also kind: right away we learn he has a broken heart and that his surgeon sister and soon-to-be-brother-in-law are using all the power and privilege at their disposal to help that heart heal. We then learn that unbeknownst to him, Chuck has received a cache of government secrets in an email from an old Stanford classmate and that this cache has been uploaded, via a series of flashing images, into Chuck’s brain. It’s called the Intersect and now both the CIA and the NSA are concerned about the mystery behind the sender and the recipient of the email containing these encoded top secret images. Layer three is the introduction of the human representatives (and personified stereotype) of each agency. We learn that Major Casey, NSA, is “a killer — cold school” and that Sarah Walker, exuding confidence, beauty and charm, is — what else — a covert operative for the CIA who wears bullet proof bustiers and weaponized hair pins and takes kill orders from the Director of the CIA himself (with whom she is on a first name basis, by the way). Casey calls Sarah “the CIA skirt” in his most demeaning tone and Sarah calls Casey “a burnout” and means that in a commensurately belittling way. It seems to be the US government itself putting the institution in the institutional purpose of the show.




One can’t help but wonder if Chuck was designed to recruit potential spies to both the CIA and the NSA. Every Hollywood stereotype is repeated and refined: the message is that spies have Maseratis, diffuse bombs, drive cars backwards down stairs, pretend to be people they are not, get to break and enter without reprisal, and of course, keep photos of their clandestine romantic relationships with fellow spies on their phones and reminisce about trips to Cabo as they sit in the lap of a luxury suite whose floor to ceiling windows offer a breathtaking view of a cosmopolitan skyline. Rather than an ulterior or secondary motive, recruitment of future employees for these national security and intelligence agencies seems not only to be one of the messages (i.e. “wouldn’t you love to live this lifestyle too? come work for us”) but the original intention for the show. In other words, Chuck is government recruiting propaganda modified to incorporate characters who interact for an hour each week first, and a dramatic comedy about spies with a few recruiting messages thrown in for good measure second.



So who exactly is being targeted by this program? “Geeks, nerds and lonely dudes,” as Chuck says when referring to himself and his cohorts in the Nerd Herd (redolent of the Geek Squad at Best Buy), who fantasize about a life of adventure where the geek gets the girl and all really is fair in love and war (2007). As a television watching demographic, the working people aren’t totally forgotten: they can see reflections of themselves in the employees at the imaginary retail store called the Buy More where Chuck works (“buy more” itself being a command statement sending a strong message to the viewing audience to spend money, regardless of a slowing economy — recession would hit the next year in 2008).  The expert physical comedy and Carol Burnett-worthy one liners and farce will appeal to those viewers who enjoy a good dramatic comedy. And who isn’t patriotic? Certainly, there are many people who aren’t, but in our post 9/11 world, it is taken for granted that we are: patriotism is a hegemonic value. Many Americans in the year 2007 were reeling over the disclosures of the Bush regime’s constitution-violating surveillance and unlawful treatment of prisoners in the Global War on Terror. Chuck was there to remind Americans from coast to coast that it’s all for a greater good. Plus, it’s exciting to boot.



Images and symbols throughout the show reinforce that assumption of patriotism: the Intersect itself is comprised of a slew of triggering images. We see fragments of actual footage of terrorists about to behead someone, then in a flash, we see Lady Liberty and an American flag. A humming bird and a rose rotate in quick succession and then we see someone being hypnotized. Never was a television show audience bombarded with images in ways that are so openly geared toward inducing and reinforcing feelings of pride, righteousness and love of country.



This show is consistently funny — hilarious at times — but its Achille’s heel for the first forty minutes of air time is that it relies on and amplifies stereotypes that descend into derogotype. I was turned off the first time I saw the pilot by the way the characters came across as one-dimensional caricatures rather than people we could really imagine in those roles. But during the last five minutes of this series premiere, after Chuck is able to diffuse a bomb with the help of the Intersect in his head, the Casey and Sarah characters suddenly reveal their humanity and their devotion to protecting others, not because they know these random people who might be affected by an explosion but simply because those strangers are in danger and preventing them from being blown up is their job, one Casey and Sarah do well and fearlessly. But there’s a very gray area society would ideally confront when it comes to portraying actual government activities in ways that glorify morally ambiguous life choices, such as killing, surveilling, and detaining people indefinitely. Chuck himself is quite literally indefinitely detained and repeatedly surveilled over the five years this series was on air, and though the majority of the American people may not object to the existence of a CIA or an NSA, I do think we should question the ethics of going beyond writing and producing an exciting show about spies protecting our country from international threats and crossing the line that separates entertainment from the manufacture and broadcast of blatant government recruiting infomercials under the guise of an independently produced TV show. That being said, Chuck soon became one of my favorite shows, each episode outdoing the degree of suspense, last minute bomb diffusion, and romantic tension of the last.



Pilot: Chuck, Season One, written by Chris Fedak and Josh Schwartz. NBC for College Hill Productions. Original Air Date: September 23, 2007.

New York Comic Con 2009: CHUCK Panel Live Blog; The TV Addict. Accessed September 8, 2016.





So the question is: Is it bad? Is it morally wrong for the government to collaborate with production studios to create this kind of patriotism-inducing call to service to our country? Actually, no. It’s just product placement like any other. We see people on TV drinking coke, we want to drink coke. But no one is forcing us to — the same concept applies to advertising certain career paths. (To wit: if watching Criminal Minds makes you want to be an FBI profiler, good — they need people to hunt down child pornographers and human traffickers and other sick psychopaths.) It’s not even morally gray. What IS gray is any glorification of torture or other unconstitutional acts. On the other hand, to its credit, Chuck did a great job of revealing the loneliness and anonymity the viewer might expect would be required of working for the government in such a capacity. Major John Casey is basically an alcoholic and Chuck Bartowski is often miserable as he finds himself entrapped by one love triangle after another and Sarah Walker literally has no friends and no life. That’s it. The writers — and the script suggests finishing touches (probably) added by very real government operatives — go out of their way to warn the viewer to think very carefully before seeking employ within the federal government.



What IS gray is any glorification of torture or other unconstitutional acts.



And as far as the glorification of torture and other unconstitutional acts goes, that is very dangerous, because its normalization is slowly but surely wearing away our collective moral compass; and the show Chuck does make light of it in other episodes later in the series. I will blog another textual analysis of the movie Central Intelligence starring the Rock and Kevin Hart to explore this paradox further.


**This show is due to be pulled from streaming on Netflix on November 1 so watch it while you can!

I’ll always love Bernie Sanders but here’s why I boarded the #TrumpTrain (and why you should too)

Please check out my video and be sure to like and subscribe!


STRATEGY: Vote third party if you live in a historically red state in order to create a historical record of dissent but vote for Trump if you live in a state that is historically blue or is a swing state. Remember, it’s a just war we’re fighting. Hillary is just a pawn in the game, the human personification of a wire transfer. But the war is real — and it’s a war on corruption. We know what we’ll get with Hillary: four more years of corporatism. Trump may keep none of his promises (to stop regime change, nation building, endless war, the TPP, pull out of NAFTA, and bring back manufacturing jobs), but we know for sure that Hillary won’t. If we take a risk on Trump’s populism, the worst case scenario is four years of republican disaster that create the fertile ground for an even more progressive candidate to run in 2020. For example, BERNIE. Hillary has run for president twice and ostensibly, Bernie would be running a re-election campaign in four years anyway, had the DNC and the mainstream media not conspired against him to ensure that Hillary was the candidate and that Bernie never even had a chance.




Here’s the article on the Iranian asset that was killed because of those classified emails Hillary sent with extreme carelessness on an unencrypted server. Ruh-roh. The Nat Sec community doesn’t like you anymore, Hillary.


The second that Iranian nuclear scientist was hanged for treason, she became a liability. Think I’m connecting imaginary dots? Well, what day was he executed? And what day did Trump make his apology speech? Trump is now being coached by people who have a lot more to lose than their pride. Notice he’s walking back his immigration stance and skipping the torture rhetoric and no longer saying weird things like “Hillary and Obama are the founders of ISIS” and instead saying logical things like “Obama and Hillary’s actions in the Middle East contributed to the vacuum from which ISIS could emerge.”



Now, when Bernie warns us that if he ever tells us who to vote for, we shouldn’t listen to him — should we listen to him? YES.




Here’s Hillary earlier this month on a stage as her health publicly deteriorates. Hillary freezes: then her handler comes up to her and tells her to “keep talking,” but has to say it twice before it works.






And here’s 13 minutes of Hillary lying straight!



Here’s a HILARIOUS — and I mean HUH-larious — reading by Bill Whittle. Hillary Clinton is NOT a feminist.



And here he is talking with Stefan Molyneux about FBI Director Comey’s scathing statement on why the FBI would not be recommending prosecution to the DOJ, which to many of us sounded a lot more like “closing arguments” that beautifully outlined all the crimes that Hillary committed rather than an explanation for why he wasn’t recommending prosecution. Bill has an excellent theory that Comey essentially couldn’t recommend prosecution because of possible corruption inside the Dept of Justice and so instead, he disclosed all of her crimes so that Congress would demand a hearing (which it did) and call for additional separate charges (which they did). Lo and behold, the Clinton Foundation is being investigated for corruption as we speak!


My own personal theory (AND I’M SPECULATING) is that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch did indeed talk about the grandchildren on the plane for 39 minutes, but especially about Loretta’s grandchildren and what might happen to them if Attorney General Lynch went ahead and charged his wife Hillary with any crimes. At that point, I speculate, faced with no other option, Director Comey decided to try Hillary Clinton in the Court of Public Opinion, and delivered his closing arguments in front of the jury of 318 million of her closest peers in the form of a live televised “official statement.”




And watch more about the donors to the Clinton Foundation in Abby Martin’s excellent expose. The whole episode is great, but I have it embedded to start at exactly 12:15 in order to get straight to the corrupt donors to the Clinton Foundation. $10 million from literal hell on earth Saudi Arabia, $10 million from billionaire oligarch Victor Pinchuk, between $1 and $5 million each from Oman, Quatar, Kuwait, the UAE and … that’s right, another friendly neighborhood Saudi billionaire. These are countries where dissent is punished with public execution. Oh, and a woman who is raped? Well, that’s adultery, you silly Westernized whore. And adulterers get stoned to death.




And here’s the conservative version of Abby Martin’s expose called “Clinton Cash.” There was a lot of pseudo fact checking, but lo and behold, it turned out that Clinton Cash the movie, like Clinton Cash the book, simply followed the money trail and documented the horror as it was. There was no need to make it look worse. Here’s the fact check of the fact check! Click here.



Now watch the Clinton Chronicles — the corruption goes WAY back!



Listen to Hillary Clinton pat herself on the back for getting a 41 year old child rapist off with two months’ time served in the 70’s. And she chuckles in nostalgic glee.


Watch Abby Martin’s excellent expose on NAFTA, “How NAFTA Displaced Millions of Mexican Farmers”


Don’t let David Seaman be the next Seth Rich.




Please vote! I’d love it if you voted for Trump but I’d love it if you voted period!


Interested in supporting my work? Click here.


Old Archived “About Sarah” page from pre-Trump Train Days

For those who have been following me since my pro-Obama days back in 2012 but haven’t seen my website since then, you may not know that I boarded the Trump Train one very special day: the day Bernie endorsed Hillary Clinton.


And you may be wondering, hey, where did Sarah’s old LONG “About me” page go??


Here it is. Reminisce away. Those were the days alright. Before I moved to D.C. in 2018. Before we knew about the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the Wikileaks emails that exposed collusion at the highest levels of government to rig the democratic nomination to ensure that Bernie never had a chance and that Hillary would be coronated queen — er I mean, President. Before I lost three friendships because I switched from Bernie to Trump. Before literally hundreds of correct the record trolls harassed me twenty-four hours a day to shame me into voting for the sociopath. Before Seth Rich, the source of the DNC email leak to Wikileaks, and a primary witness in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit, dropped dead. And before Shawn Lucas, the process server and secondary witness in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit dropped dead. So much Arkancide, SO LITTLE TIME, amirite?!? But it was all worth it, because Hillary Clinton will never ever hold public office again. Thank you, Jesus, Holy Spirit and God!



Sarah lives in St Paul, MN, where she signs a petition a day to keep the fascism away, protests injustice and objects to abuse of power by authority on a semi-regular basis, and hosts the weekly blog talk radio show, the Progressive Patriot, on Sunday nights at 10 pm Central time. This is a live show but if you missed past episodes and would like to catch up, they are archived for your convenience. (2018 update – show is on hiatus for now.)



Sarah created this website to serve as a source of inspiration, information, and encouragement to the Millennial generation, each of these posts intended to act as a reminder of the call to create and sustain a world of democracy, social justice, and nonviolent conflict resolution. The brilliant strategy to induce the widespread usage of either/or trigger words (such as left/right, liberal/conservative, democrat/republican, etc.) is very effectively dividing and conquering generation after generation. The innate inspiration and drive of the Millennials will be instrumental in uniting and motivating multiple generations, in turn, to contribute to a paradigm shift that could lead to a state of affairs on Earth much more tangible than the oft-repeated catchphrase world peace, and that is world joy.



You’ll notice that Sarah leans to the left on most political issues as you peruse the site, and she asks you to bear in mind that no government style is perfect because all governments are comprised of human beings who are flawed. Government can no more legislate goodness into people than religion can force flaw out of them; indeed before Separation of Church and State, i.e. separation of religion and government, religion was simply a competing governing body, picking up with religious doctrine wherever government decree left off, greed for power at the core of the one perpetually mirroring greed for money at the root of the other. That said, her laundry list of issues she intends to organize and inspire large groups of people to petition their (her) government for a redress of include 1) Gitmo (close it), 2) drone strikes (end them by repealing AUMF and restore due process; drone strikes are executions without trial — charging people with a crime in a court of law comes first, then a trial) 3) the PATRIOT Act (which is the opposite of how a patriot would act — repeal it), 4) NAFTA a.k.a. the North American Free Trade Agreement (withdraw from it), 5) TPP a.k.a. the Trans Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement (withdraw from all negotiations, #StopTheTPP) [2017 UPDATE, TRUMP PULLED US OUT OF ALL TPP NEGOTIATIONS! #Winning], 6) universal health care (put all primary physicians on federal payroll — what is a doctor but a judge of disease? let’s have a Health System as amazing as our Justice System was prior to 9/11), 7) income inequality (raise the minimum wage to $16.00/hour for full time workers, and require all employers to offer a forty hour work week to all employees, 8) Wall Street Speculation (choke it with  1% Tobin tax on every transaction), and 9) Social Security (save it by funding it via a flat tax on all income, not just the first $113,700).

Body Language/Speech Analysis: FBI Director Comey & the Inevitable Hillary Indictment

Logic is hard. Critical thinking is no longer taught in our schools. Most colleges do not require a course in logic to graduate, and because the media can legally lie, even if people were skilled at drawing reasonable conclusions, they would often be basing those conclusions on false information anyway.


That said, let’s try applying a little logic to the Hillary implosion — aided and abetted by one Associated Press. Fact: The number of delegates required to “clinch the nomination” is 2383. Fact: Hillary does not have that many today. She did not have that many on June 6, 2016, the night someone blackmailed/bribed someone else at AP to discard all journalistic integrity and declare that she had enough superdelegates to “clinch the nomination.” AP claims that they polled all the superdelegates and that there were just enough to give her the win. This would be like polling all the members of the Electoral College and declaring that Trump had enough electoral votes to win the presidency! (Does it sound like I’m speculating when I use big words like “blackmail” and “bribery”? Well, that’s because I am. Simultaneously, I’m extending AP the benefit of the doubt — the doubt that they could ever do something so unethical, immoral and unjust unless they were under the incredible pressure of being blackmailed or bribed.)



FACT: There’s a date on the calendar when the superdelegates vote. That date — JULY 25, 2016 — has not come and gone according to the passage of months, days and hours that we measure using time-keeping devices and subsequently label “history.”




TRUTH: Hillary has not received the nomination. She is not the presumptive nominee. She is exactly where she was a year ago: Not the Democratic nominee for president in the 2016 election cycle.


Further, we can analyze FBI Director Comey’s word choices, body language, and tone of voice and see (and hear) that he does indeed plan to recommend to the Department of Justice that Hillary be indicted under the Espionage Act. Why? Because that is the law she has broken by allowing Special Access Program emails to go unencrypted on her private server for three months (from NBC: “the special access program in question was so sensitive that McCullough and some of his aides had to receive clearance to be read in on it before viewing the sworn declaration about the Clinton emails“). Author and columnist H. A. Goodman explains the basic legal facts in the excellent video below (it will start at exactly the point in the video where he gets to that, 12:32). In summary, yes, some of the emails were retroactively classified, but that’s not relevant. Convicted whistleblowers sit in prison right now for transferring retroactively classified emails, so it’s a crime and one that gets indictments and guilty verdicts. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The SAP emails were born classified. There is no “retroactive” for those emails. They were above Top Secret from the get go.



But don’t take Goodman’s word for it: the recent release (5/26/16) of the State Department Inspector General report concluded that 1) Hillary violated the federal records act by not turning over all official emails before she left the State Dept and 2) that there was no evidence that she ever received approval to use her own email account for conducting official State Department business (or ever even requested such approval). So there’s ample evidence that she should be indicted. Will she? She’s betting she won’t. Her alienating presumptuous arrogance is embarrassing enough (for example when she says that the report won’t affect either her campaign or “my presidency”) but the disrespect and disregard for the law she doesn’t even attempt to hide is really over the top.


Frankly, I thought that there was a good chance that corruption would thwart the release of the State Dept IG report and, that even if it were released, it would likely be false. (And it’s damning — very damning.) The FBI, on the other hand, I have far more faith in (or rather, less doubt). There is no way to get inside Director Comey’s head and know what he intends to do, however, there is a fascinating theory that people are always confessing (literally, that people are always subtly revealing the truth with their words, tone and body language) and that if you listen well enough, you can hear what they’re really saying. In other words, there are three elements of communication. First, the words that are coming out of a person’s mouth; second, what they’re really saying; and third, what they’re not saying.


Cenk Uygur explains below that Director Comey, at a May 11 “Pen & Pad” Briefing with Reporters, was very direct in clarifying that there is no “security inquiry,” that in fact, Hillary is being investigated as part of a criminal investigation. Comey says, “I’m not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry.’ We’re conducting an investigation. That’s what we do. It’s in our name. There are no special set of rules for anybody that the FBI investigates.”



But there is no audio in this segment from TYT. Those phrases are really an amalgamation of several things Director Comey said in two separate exchanges with a reporter. Here’s the first one, copy/pasted from the FBI’s website (except, it wasn’t a complete transcription so I edited it). Turns out, it’s not so direct after all. In fact, the way he square dances with the truth is far more revealing. Pen & Pad briefings are audio only, so we can’t see Director Comey, but in a way, that’s easier, at least for me. Undistracted by facial expressions, I can hone in on “weak” spots in his speech (this means, places where the societal mask we all wear disappears for a second or two).

Starting at 21:04:


Catherine: On the e-mails, Director Comey, are you doing a security inquiry?

Director Comey: (long pause – awkward!) I’m sorry?

Catherine: On the e-mails are you doing a security inquiry?

Director Comey: I don’t know what that means.

Catherine: So it’s a criminal investigation?

Director Comey: We’re conducting an investigation. That-that’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do. And (pause) that’s probably all I can say about it.

Catherine: The reason I ask is that Mrs. Clinton consistently refers to it as a security inquiry, but the FBI does criminal investigations. I just want to —

Director Comey: Right —

Catherine: — see if you can clear that up.

Director Comey: — it’s in our name.

Catherine: Okay.

Director Comey: Yeah.

Catherine: Okay. So it’s not —

Director Comey: I’m not familiar with the term security inquiry.


BEST PART EVER: “I’m sorry?” he says, as if he has no idea what a security inquiry is and in fact, has never even heard such an bizarre off-the-wall term! A what??? A dinglehopper inquiry? A security yackamadoodle? How odd! I’ve never HEARD of such a thing!! Silly Catherine. Surely you jest! From what alternate realm do you descend where FBI stands for Federal Bureau of Inquiry? Inquisition maybe, inquiry — NEVER!


Ok, so he’s just a little too ready to respond with confusion to that question and a little too ready to feign innocence. It’s so funny, so actually hilarious that if it were say, Chris Parnell playing Comey in the SNL version of this exchange, Chris would not even have to exaggerate his intonation on “I’m sorry?” I think James Comey means, Sorry, not sorry. #sorrynotsorry


Let’s keep breaking it down: Cat goes, “on the email, are you doing a security inquiry?” and Directory Comey is all, “I don’t know what that means.” He’s actually being quite kind to Catherine in particular (she is one of the few people he addresses by name), so what does his faux-surprise pretend-ignorance MEAN???? Well, if we were using something I call “red neon sign translate,” he would be holding up a red neon sign that says, “the concept of a security inquiry is so absurd, so silly, and so illogical because the concept of actually and truly being investigated by the FBI is so measurably tangibly serious that downplaying it that much can only mean one thing: that Hillary is actually dumb which is measurably untrue OR she’s very very afraid; either way, I am not even going to acknowledge the insult to the entire Bureau that her euphemism conveys; if there’s anything I can do about it, she will never be our boss.”


Ok, that would be a big red neon sign. Fine. God, split hairs.


But WAIT — there’s more! Cat tries to make him admit on the record that it’s a criminal investigation when she says, “So it’s a criminal investigation?”


Now we get to hear his dad tone. All of a sudden he gets — just a little — pissed. “We’re conducting an investigation,” he barks says in a clipped tone. He’s not angry with/at Catherine, but again, he’s sick and tired of saying that they’re conducting an investigation because conducting investigations is all a bureau of investigation does. What else would it do? Really?


Then Catherine, taken aback by Comey’s departure from his generally jovial low key tone slips into hedge language: “the reason I ask” — she doesn’t have to give a reason; she’s a reporter, she asks questions for a living, we know why: it’s her job. But she feels compelled to gently rephrase her question because he barked at her and she felt bad for a second. She concludes with “I just want to see if you can clear that up.” This kind of hedge language is what we use on parents, bosses and other authority figures when they’re “in a bad mood” because we don’t want to get snapped at. Phrases that couch our request, such as “I was just wondering …” or “how would you feel if I possibly …” or “Do you happen to know by chance if/when/what ….?” instead of a direct question. She could have said, “You know why I’m asking — it doesn’t make any sense. Will you please state for the record that the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton?” But, he answers affirmatively anyway! TWICE!


He says, “Right. It’s in our name.” Listen to the way he says it: “Right.” As in, yes, obviously. Hillary is being criminally investigated. And then when Catherine starts to use a placating tone to communicate to him primally that she is not a threat (“Okay, okay”), he communicates back to her with his calmer tone, “yes, I know you’re not a threat; you’re good, and yes, you’re 100% correct — yeah.” He uses affirmative language twice here, with the word Right and the word Yeah. This is not a coincidence. This is a man who chooses his words extremely carefully, and has no problem with hesitating if he hasn’t found the right words yet (wise man — as my mom used to say, “Once words come out of our mouths, they can never go back in, just like bullets from a gun. And words can be even more dangerous.”).


There’s more. At 14:21:


Eric: I know you don’t want to talk about the Hillary e-mails but I’m asking anyway.

Director Comey: [Are you ashamed?]

Eric: Yeah, I try not to. You’ve indicated publicly, in Niagara Falls and a few other places that you were going to finish this up on your own schedule. You were in no rush. The convention wasn’t a factor, nothing else was a factor. Is there a concern in the director’s office that this investigation is now the subject of so much scrutiny and speculation that you’re affecting a presidential election, in a negative way?

Director Comey: All I would do Eric is repeat what I said before. In any investigation, especially one of intense public interest, and I felt this about San Bernardino. We want to do it well and we want to do it promptly. And so I feel –I feel pressure to do both of those things? (passive aggressive up-talk) What I said at some places, I don’t — I don’t see — I don’t tether to any parTICular external deadline? (passive aggressive up-talk) Look, I understand the interest in this particular investigation. I do feel the pressure to do it well and promptly. As between the two, we will always choose well. That’s the same general answer I hope I’ve [been giving] before.


Director Comey’s uptalk is pronounced in this exchange. When noticeable in a teen-aged girl, this voice mask is used to hide her intelligence because she feels compelled to hide any trait that could be a threat to others. In the head of the FBI, it’s super condescending. And he totally insulted “Eric” when he asked rhetorically, “are you ashamed?” Here’s what we know now about Director Comey (but could really have already guessed knowing that he was a US Attorney because they are lawyers who use words as tools and weapons to persuade juries): he can be mean. So, he has that streak of meanness. Now, we haven’t seen him in twenty different situations — we aren’t omniscient either — so we can only make an assessment based on the available data. Plus, he wasn’t mean to Catherine — he was only a little tetchy. The only time he was actually unkind was with Eric. And after all, we might be mean too if we had to keep dealing with idiots who asked stupid questions, especially if they were attempts to put concerns words in our office mouth disguised as questions.


So in order to truly gauge his character and make a well-rounded analysis, we need to look at at least two more interactions, with varying power dynamics. In the Pen & Pad briefing, the reporters were subject to him. He was most likely standing at an elevated podium, and they had to get permission to speak to him, to even be in the room. In this next video, he is on an equal level with the person interviewing him — they are both sitting (this is a position of non-dominance, and if the other person is standing, it is a position of subservience) and he was invited to be the interviewer’s guest. And in the third video we’ll look at, he is subject to a Congressional Committee, sitting below the members of a Senate Select Committee, looking up at them (looking up TO them, as a public servant, where the Senate represents the public — or the 37% of the public that bothers to vote in Senate elections).


I’ve capitalized or bold/italicized some words that Director Comey speaks, for a specific reason, below the video:



He says:

“Somebody asked me -uh- in the States about whether I’ve -uh- I think the question was, is the Democratic National Convention a, I forget what the question was, a hard stop for you or is that a key date for you or are you doing this investigation aimed at — and I said, NO. I — we aspire to do all our investigations in two ways: well and promptly. I’m personally close to this investigation because I want to enSURE [pause] that we have the resources, the people, the technology, and the SPACE [pause] to DO those things. And to do it in the way I hope we do ALL our work which is competently, honestly and INDEPENDENTLY. Um, and, I’m CONFIDENT it’s being done that way.”


So in communication element 1, the words that are coming out of his mouth, we can hear him say that he’s committed to concluding the investigation well, professionally, above board, the right way, quality over speed, etc, etc. It’s the same party line he’s been repeating for months.


But what is he really saying (communication element 2)? He says: I’m personally close to the investigation. Now, as we know, from a logic standpoint, the director of the bureau technically oversees all investigations but he says he’s “close” to it. The word close here is important. He could have said, “I am watching over my agents” or “I am doing everything I personally can to ensure the integrity of the investigation” but he doesn’t.  He says he’s close. What he’s really saying is that he’s close to finishing it. Now why does he mention space? That’s weird. Really weird. You don’t bring up space until you feel like you don’t have enough space, until you feel that your space is being encroached upon. For example, people who say they “need some space.” Space is also a word where his voice mask slips for a split second. Why? Because someone is likely hovering over him or attempting to infringe upon his space, probably someone who would rather the investigation stop.




Now, to deduce what he’s not saying, the most revealing of all the three elements of communication, we’re going to “do the math” and take all the pressure points or weak spots in his speech, every word or syllable where his mask slips (this is not a face mask, this is a voice mask) and add them together.




We then treat this like putting a ripped up handwritten note back together that is missing some of the pieces. No, we’re not reading it in context, but it could still be a very valuable source of information. The fun part here is that we get to fill in the blanks and move the pieces around into different orders (this also means that we are doing art, not science, and therefore the accuracy rate of our conclusion goes down).


So imagine that we heard him say, “No sure space do all independently confident” and we were like, what did he say?


There’s no sure space to do it all independently or confidently (?)


There’s no confident space to be sure or all independent (?)

OR, what I think it is,

There is no sure space (secure space); [I’m] doing all (everything) independently and confident [ially].



Yes, it is a stretch. And we’ll never know if this was the right analysis or not. The only thing we can verify (and I’m happy to be wrong — this is fun for me because I’m often right, but not always!) is that he’s close to being finished with the investigation, from communication element two. I predict it will be August of 2016 when the DOJ finally indicts Hillary.


I predict it will be August of 2016 when the DOJ finally indicts Hillary.


Additionally, watch his hands when he says he’s close to the investigation — his hands hold — nay, grip! — an invisible object. It’s very close to him indeed. There are other very pleasant aspects of his body language; I’m not going to specify all the indicators in his voice and hand movements and posture, etc, but they mean that he is probably a protective person, a thoughtful person, a person who can be violent sometimes but defensively, not aggressively, that he would not hurt women, that he has some regret (people who don’t feel regret don’t have an intact moral compass — we WANT indicators of regret), that he is very gentle toward children and domestic animals and vulnerable people, also that he’s methodical, logical, reflective, and talkative. Negatives? He likes the sound of his own voice, he likes giving advice and keeping people rooted to the spot while they listen to it because they feel obligated to, is moderately arrogant (the regret off-sets this and neutralizes the effect in his everyday life), is self-righteous, assumes that he is smarter than most people (although there are indicators of high intelligence and an excellent memory so he probably IS smarter than most people). Finally, there is also an interesting indicator of humility: it tells us that there was an event in the recent past where he realized just how powerful his influence on changing the outcome of a situation for the better really is (within the past 5 years, probably 3 years ago).



Now let’s go to that Hearing on Worldwide Threats, the Senate Select Committee hearing I mentioned earlier, where Director Comey is acting as a public servant and is thus the subordinate one in the power dynamic. Click here and then forward the feed to 1:04:46 to see the opening question from a Senator and then his response.



There’s no text for me to copy/paste and this hearing is long and sad and boring so suffice it to say, there are more indicators that Comey is logical, methodical, respectful of authority (both kinds, that which is endowed by rank and that which is endowed by We the People), humble, kind, protective of vulnerable peoples, along with new interesting indicators: that he is curious, deferential (he shows the most deference to Jim Clapper in this video; his body language indicates respect and admiration for the DNI), patient (listen to the way he explains concepts to Congress — he goes out of his way to not sound condescending toward them) and also happily married.



Finally, there was a second exchange Director Comey had with Catherine at the Pen & Pad briefing that really encapsulates my whole conclusion.

Catherine: I’m hopeful that you can answer this one.

Director Comey: Is it Hillary Clinton related?

Catherine: Yeah, but this is a really important issue though.

Director Comey: I don’t doubt that all of your questions are important. I’m just telling you I’m predicting the answer. As short as you can.

Catherine: I actually keep my questions very short (Cute — she knows she’s special and the favorite). [crosstalk 00:56:06] I consistently hear from security clearance holders that if they had done a fraction of what had been done by Mrs. Clinton’s team that they would already be in jail. Can you assure people that Mrs. Clinton and her team are being held to the same standard? That there isn’t a special set of rules because they are powerful and politically connected?

Director Comey: I’m not going to comment (pause) other than to say there are no special set of rules for anybody that the FBI investigates.


So, first he says that he’s not going to comment … then he comments — lol. So WHY does he comment? Because his moral compass compels him to. If he really doesn’t say anything (or regurgitates the same old non-answer he gave to Eric), then he’s not denying what everyone already thinks, that people like the Clintons get special treatment and everyone else gets a SWAT team at 4:00 a.m. breaking down the door and terrifying the entire building/block. It annoys him that he even has to say this (because in his ideal Just World it’s a given) but he grudgingly (after a pause) agrees exactly with Catherine’s word choice and echoes her phrasing exactly, “no special set of rules,” and goes beyond that — for anybody the FBI investigates. So now we know he’s idealistic and has an aversion to hypocrisy and bullies. Good! And what else do we know? That he is a person who is compelled by his moral compass. In the end, he will not be able to keep from doing the right thing and seeking justice.


So Bernie, you better stay in the race, Senator!








**Did you enjoy this body language/word choice analysis? Great! Please let me know on twitter and comment below!


***If you are the FBI, I would like a mug, please. An oversized one with the seal on it. You can send it to me at

Sarah Reynolds | 1299 Grand Ave #304 | St Paul, MN 55105


****But I would like Hillary indicted more than the mug, so if I have to choose, then the indictment.


Tell the @EPA: it’s time to ban #Organophosphates

It’s that time again! The EPA is taking public comments on whether chemicals that cause cancer and are linked to autism and other developmental delays should be allowed on our food! And in our water! Let’s say no  … all over again! Just say no! No means no!


Click here, enter your name and address, and click submit OR copy/paste my slightly longer paragraph below into the text box and submit THAT. Also, take 30 seconds if you have time to read the original April 2016 report released by the EPA stating that these organophosphates are killing us, our kids and plants & animals — link at the bottom of the post. THANK YOU!! You earth lover, you.


It’s time to ban the use of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion. These nerve-damaging pesticides put nearly 97 percent of all endangered species at risk of harm, jeopardizing the existence of plants and animals listed under the Endangered Species Act. Multiple scientific research studies link these organophosphates to cognitive delays in children and a host of other detrimental human health effects. The World Health Organization last year announced that malathion and diazinon are probable carcinogens. The EPA should immediately remove them all from use. Please take action on this important issue.



April 2016 EPA Analysis: 97 Percent of Endangered Species Threatened by Two Common Pesticides

Copy/paste this into your browser for more info: