Saturday, June 30, 2018

Q - The Plan To Save The World




 I expect you will need to copy this link and to set it up in your address line.  It is been censored.

Understand that i have long since come to understand a lot of the underlying detail of what is going on.  The new part for me is the implied full cooperation of the NSA with Mil Intel.

At this time, the opposition all know that the gig is up and that control is steadily slipping away.  It appears we are winning and it is obvious now how Iran will soon fall to control of the people.  Here we will finally see the takedown of the Cabalists start as this film is part of the public disclosure.  It has begun.

At the same time, Putin is meeting with John Bolton and this will be followed by a meeting with Trump in Helsinki in mid-July.  This will form an alliance whose primary objective will evolve into the full restoration of Christendom as an active living force in the world.  Central will be the spiritual component in this resurgent Christianity.  It may not be stated immediately.


Q - The Plan To Save The World








 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYZ8dUgPuU&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYZ8dUgPuU&feature=youtu.be



Going Nowhere Fast




Particle physics has extracted as much as it can from internal symmetries and geometries that it might. I have long said that the approach is famously Ptolemaic in the same sense as Pre Copernican Astronomy and few actually understand this or admit it.

A successful approach will need to be orthogonal to the present mathematical regime.  such a regime is Cloud cosmology, based on the rigorous description of the Space Time Pendulum (Robert Bernard Klein, 03 07 2013 this blog )  and the application of Pythagorean metrics order greater than two. ( Robert Bernard Klein, AIP Physics Essays June 2010).

The current work remains mired dealing with measurement scales and objects many orders of magnitude greater than that of the critical neutrino.  A little like say something intelligent about sand by moving Mount Everest. Cloud Cosmology constructs rigorously that mountain by describing rigorously a grain of sand.  We start with what can be mathematically true and build out to the larger objects naturally..


Going nowhere fast 

After the success of the Standard Model, experiments have stopped answering to grand theories. Is particle physics in crisis?


Ben Allanach

is a professor in the department of applied mathematics and theoretical physics at the University of Cambridge. Along with other members of the Cambridge Supersymmetry Working Group, his research focuses on collider searches for new physics.


Edited by Sally Davies


https://aeon.co/essays/has-the-quest-for-top-down-unification-of-physics-stalled

In recent years, physicists have been watching the data coming in from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) with a growing sense of unease. We’ve spent decades devising elaborate accounts for the behaviour of the quantum zoo of subatomic particles, the most basic building blocks of the known universe. The Standard Model is the high-water mark of our achievements to date, with some of its theoretical predictions verified to within a one-in-ten-billion chance of error – a simply astounding degree of accuracy. But it leaves many questions unanswered. For one, where does gravity come from? Why do matter particles always possess three, ever-heavier copies, with peculiar patterns in their masses? What is dark matter, and why does the universe contain more matter than antimatter?
[  i am actually able to address these questions through simulation using computer power we can approach today...  arclein]

[  Gravity is a natural mathematical artifact from the difference between mathematical infinity and empirical infinity - arclein ]

In the hope of solving some of these mysteries, physicists have been grafting on elegant and exciting new mathematical structures to the Standard Model. The programme follows an arc traced by fundamental physics since the time of Isaac Newton: the pursuit of unification, in which science strives to explain seemingly disparate ‘surface’ phenomena by identifying, theorising and ultimately proving their shared ‘bedrock’ origin. This top-down, reductive style of thinking has yielded many notable discoveries. Newton perceived that both an apple falling to the ground, and the planets orbiting around the sun, could be explained away by gravity. The physicist Paul Dirac came up with antimatter in 1928 by marrying quantum mechanics and Einstein’s special theory of relativity. And since the late 20th century, string theorists have been trying to reconcile gravity and quantum physics by conceiving of particles as tiny vibrating loops of string that exist in somewhere between 10 and 26 dimensions.


So when the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) cranked up the LHC just outside Geneva for a second time in 2015, hopes for empirical validation were running high. The fruits of physicists’ most adventurous top-down thinking would finally be put to the test. In its first three-year run, the LHC had already notched up one astounding success: in 2012, CERN announced that the Higgs boson had been found, produced in high-energy, head-on collisions between protons. The new particle existed for just a fleeting fraction of a second before decaying into a pair of tell-tale photons at specific, signature energies. What set the scientific world alight was not the excitement of a new particle per se, but the fact it was a smoking gun for a theory about how matter gets its mass. Until the British physicist Peter Higgs and others came up with their hypothetical boson in 1964, the emerging mathematical model had predicted – against the evidence – that particles should have no mass at all. Eventually, half a century after the ‘fix’ was first proposed, the boson officially entered the subatomic bestiary, the last bit of the Standard Model to be experimentally verified.


This time, though, none of the more exotic particles and interactions that theorists hoped to see has been forthcoming. No ‘stop squarks’, no ‘gluinos’, no ‘neutralinos’. The null results are now encrusting the hull of the Standard Model, like barnacles on a beautiful old frigate, and dragging her down to the ocean floor. It looks like the centuries-long quest for top-down unification has stalled, and particle physics might have a full-blown crisis on its hands.


Behind the question of mass, an even bigger and uglier problem was lurking in the background of the Standard Model: why is the Higgs boson so light? In experiments it weighed in at 125 times the mass of a proton. But calculations using the theory implied that it should be much bigger – roughly ten million billion times bigger, in fact.


This super-massive Higgs boson is meant to be the result of quantum fluctuations: an ultra-heavy particle-antiparticle pair, produced for a fleeting instant and then subsequently annihilated. Quantum fluctuations of ultra-heavy particle pairs should have a profound effect on the Higgs boson, whose mass is very sensitive to them. The other particles in the Standard Model are shielded from such quantum effects by certain mathematical symmetries – that is, things don’t change under transformation, like a square turned through 90 degrees – but the Higgs boson is the odd one out, and feels the influence very keenly.

Except that it doesn’t, because the mass of the Higgs appears to be so small. One logical option is that nature has chosen the initial value of the Higgs boson mass to precisely offset these quantum fluctuations, to an accuracy of one in 1016. However, that possibility seems remote at best, because the initial value and the quantum fluctuation have nothing to do with each other. It would be akin to dropping a sharp pencil onto a table and having it land exactly upright, balanced on its point. In physics terms, the configuration of the pencil is unnatural or fine-tuned. Just as the movement of air or tiny vibrations should make the pencil fall over, the mass of the Higgs shouldn’t be so perfectly calibrated that it has the ability to cancel out quantum fluctuations.


However, instead of an uncanny correspondence, maybe the naturalness problem with the Higgs boson could be explained away by a new, more foundational theory: supersymmetry. To grasp supersymmetry, we need to look a bit more closely at particles. Particles behave a bit like tiny spinning tops, although the amount of their spin is restricted. For example, all electrons in the universe have the same amount of spin; all photons have double this amount, and all Higgs bosons have no spin at all. The fundamental unit of spin is the spin of the electron. Other particles may only have spins equal to some whole number multiplied by the electron’s spin.


Each collision is a quantum process, which means it’s inherently random


Supersymmetry is an idea that connects particles of different spins: it says they are different aspects of the same underlying object. Importantly, the large quantum fluctuations of particle-antiparticle pairs that affect the Higgs boson make the Higgs lighter if the spin of the antiparticle is an odd number multiple of an electron’s spin, or heavier if the spin of the antiparticle is an even number multiple of an electron’s spin. What this means is that supersymmetry can balance the quantum effects on the mass of the Higgs boson like a see-saw. On one side sit all of the odd-number spin particles, exactly balanced against the other side with the even-number spin particles. The overall effect is that the see-saw doesn’t move, and the Higgs boson experiences no huge quantum influences on its mass.


A major consequence of supersymmetry is that every particle we know about should have a copy (a ‘superpartner’) with exactly the same properties – except for two things. One, its spin should differ by one unit. And two, the superpartner should be heavier. The mass of the superpartner is not fixed, but the heavier one makes them, the less exact the cancellation between the particle and its superpartner, and the more you have to rely on the mass of the particle itself being fine-tuned. One can make superpartners have a mass of around 1,000 times that of a proton, and they still function reasonably well. But increase the mass by a factor of 10 and the theory goes back to looking quite unnatural.

By smashing protons together, the LHC should be able to produce these superpartners, provided they weigh around 1,000 times the mass of a proton. To do this, you change the energy of the proton beams into the mass of the predicted superpartners, via Einstein’s equation of special relativity: E=mc2 (energy equals the square of the mass). Each collision is a quantum process, however, which means it’s inherently random and you can’t predict exactly what will happen. But using the correct theory, you can calculate the relative probabilities of various outcomes. By measuring billions upon billions of collisions, you can then check the theory’s predictions against the relative frequencies of particles that are created.


As you can already tell, finding out what happens at the point of the protons colliding involves a lot of detective work. In this case, you try to check how often supersymmetric particles are produced by watching them decay into more ordinary particles. The positions of these byproducts are measured by huge detectors, machines placed around crossing points in the counter-rotating beams of the LHC that act like enormous three-dimensional cameras.


The signature of supersymmetric particles was meant to be the production of a heavy invisible particle, which could sneak through the detector like a thief, leaving no trace. These very weakly interacting particles are candidates for the origin of dark matter in the universe; the strange, invisible stuff that we know from cosmological measurement should be about four times more prevalent than ordinary matter. The red flag for their presence was meant to be theft of momentum from a collision, meaning that the momentum before and after the collision doesn’t balance.


My colleagues and I watched the LHC closely for such tell-tale signs of superpartners. None have been found. We started to ask whether we might have missed them somehow. Perhaps some of the particles being produced were too low in energy for the collisions to be observed. Or perhaps we were wrong about dark matter particles – maybe there was some other, unstable type of particle.

In the end, these ideas weren’t really a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card. Using various experimental analysis techniques, they were also hunted out and falsified. Another possibility was that the superpartners were a bit heavier than expected; so perhaps the mass of the Higgs boson did have some cancellation in it (one part in a few hundred, say). But as the data rolled in and the beam energy of the LHC was ramped up, supersymmetry became more and more squeezed as a solution to the Higgs boson naturalness problem.


The bleakest sign is that the naturalness problem isn’t confined to the Higgs boson

The trouble is that it’s not clear when to give up on supersymmetry. True, as more data arrives from the LHC with no sign of superpartners, the heavier they would have to be if they existed, and the less they solve the problem. But there’s no obvious point at which one says ‘ah well, that’s it – now supersymmetry is dead’. Everyone has their own biased point in time at which they stop believing, at least enough to stop working on it. The LHC is still going and there’s still plenty of effort going into the search for superpartners, but many of my colleagues have moved on to new research topics. For the first 20 years of my scientific career, I cut my teeth on figuring out ways to detect the presence of superpartners in LHC data. Now I’ve all but dropped it as a research topic.


It could be that we got the wrong end of the stick with how we frame the puzzle of the Higgs boson. Perhaps we’re missing something from the mathematical framework with which we calculate its mass. Researchers have worked along these lines and so far come up with nothing, but that doesn’t mean there’s no solution. Another suspicion relates to the fact that the hypothesis of heavy particles relies on arguments based on a quantum theory of gravity – and such a theory has not yet been verified, although there are mathematically consistent constructions.


Perhaps the bleakest sign of a flaw in present approaches to particle physics is that the naturalness problem isn’t confined to the Higgs boson. Calculations tell us that the energy of empty space (inferred from cosmological measurements to be tiny) should be huge. This would make the outer reaches of the universe decelerate away from us, when in fact observations of certain distant supernovae suggest that the outer reaches of our universe are accelerating. Supersymmetry doesn’t fix this conflict. Many of us began to suspect that whatever solved this more difficult issue with the universe’s vacuum energy would solve the other, milder one concerning the mass of the Higgs.


All these challenges arise because of physics’ adherence to reductive unification. Admittedly, the method has a distinguished pedigree. During my PhD and early career in the 1990s, it was all the rage among theorists, and the fiendishly complex mathematics of string theory was its apogee. But none of our top-down efforts seem to be yielding fruit. One of the difficulties of trying to get at underlying principles is that it requires us to make a lot of theoretical presuppositions, any one of which could end up being wrong. We were hoping by this stage to have measured the mass of some superpartners, which would have given us some data on which to pin our assumptions. But we haven’t found anything to measure.


This doesn’t mean we need to give up on the unification paradigm. It just means that incrementalism is to be preferred to absolutism

Instead, many of us have switched from the old top-down style of working to a more humble, bottom-up approach. Instead of trying to drill down to the bedrock by coming up with a grand theory and testing it, now we’re just looking for any hints in the experimental data, and working bit by bit from there. If some measurement disagrees with the Standard Model’s predictions, we add an interacting particle with the right properties to explain it. Then we look at whether it’s consistent with all the other data. Finally, we ask how the particle and its interactions can be observed in the future, and how experiments should sieve the data in order to be able to test it.


The bottom-up method is much less ambitious than the top-down kind, but it has two advantages: it makes fewer assumptions about theory, and it’s tightly tethered to data. This doesn’t mean we need to give up on the old unification paradigm, it just suggests that we shouldn’t be so arrogant as to think we can unify physics right now, in a single step. It means incrementalism is to be preferred to absolutism – and that we should use empirical data to check and steer us at each instance, rather than making grand claims that come crashing down when they’re finally confronted with experiment.


A test case for the bottom-up methodology is the bottom meson, a composite particle made of something called a bottom quark and another known as a lighter quark. Bottom mesons appear to be decaying with the ‘wrong’ probabilities. Experiments in the LHC have measured billions of such decays, and it seems that the probability of getting a muon pair from particular interactions is about three-quarters of the probability of what the Standard Model says it should be. We can’t be totally sure yet that this effect is in strong disagreement with the Standard Model – more data is being analysed to make sure that the result is not due to statistics, or some subtle systematic error.


Some of us are busy speculating on what these findings might mean. Excitations of two different types of new, unobserved, exotic particles – known as Z-primes and leptoquarks, each buried deep within the bottom mesons – could be responsible for the bottom mesons misbehaving. However, the trouble is that one doesn’t know which (if either) type of particle is responsible. In order to check, ideally we’d produce them in LHC collisions and detect their decay products (these decay products should include muons with a certain energy). The LHC has a chance of producing Z-primes or leptoquarks, but it’s possible they’re just too heavy. In that case, one would need to build a higher energy collider: an ambitious plan for a beam of energy of seven times the intensity of the LHC would be a good option. 


In the meantime, my colleagues and I ask: ‘Why should the new particles be there?’ A new mathematical symmetry might be the answer for Z-primes: it requires the Z-prime’s existence to hold. From this symmetry, one then gets additional theoretical constraints, and also some predictions for likely experimental signatures which could be checked with experiments in the future. Often, the bottom mesons are predicted to decay in other ways with some probability – for example, to something called an antimuon-tau. The LHC will be actively analysing their data for such signals in the future.


We began with an experimental signature (the particular bottom meson decays that disagree with Standard Model predictions), then we tried to ‘bung in’ a new hypothesised particle to explain it. Its predictions must be compared with current data to check that the explanation is still viable. Then we started building an additional theoretical structure that predicted the existence of the particle, as well as its interactions. This theory will allow us to make predictions for future measurements of decays, as well as search for the direct production of the new particle at the LHC. Only after any hints from these measurements and searches have been taken into account, and the models tweaked, might we want to embed the model in a larger, more unified theoretical structure. This may drive us progressively on the unification road, rather than attempting to jump to it in one almighty leap. 

Young Trumpies Hit D.C.



 
We have never seen a political change over that was so radical in anyone's lifetime.   Naturally the antagonism has lingered although i do expect the next three months to wash all that away once and for all.

That it has lingered so long comes from the sustained effort of the DEMs to actually obstruct the transition as if it were not legitimate.  This meant keeping loyalists on edge and though fading it is still there.

Quite a historical shock though.

.
Young Trumpies Hit D.C.

… And D.C. hits them right back.

By DANIEL LIPPMAN and BEN SCHRECKINGER

July/August 2018

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/22/trump-millennial-supporters-washington-dc-218833


When Matt Mowers moved to Washington in November 2016, he wasn’t expecting a hero’s welcome. The young political operative had worked for Donald Trump’s campaign in New York, where you can hardly walk down the block in many neighborhoods without spying the words “Fuck Trump” scrawled somewhere on the streetscape.
 

But last year, his new neighbors in Dupont Circle, the upscale area known for its stately townhouses and history as a hub of gay life in the District, pulled some moves that surprised even Mowers, by then chief of staff at the State Department’s global AIDS office. In the run-up to Mowers’ first Halloween here, one of his neighbors strung up a skeleton and a pumpkin next to each other on a tree. The pumpkin had a sign: “Now kids, just because you’re orange doesn’t mean you’re related to him!” With the dangling skeleton was a more menacing note: “Donald Trump’s EPA director.”


There’s always tension when administrations change in Washington; a new cast of characters arrives, and an influx of appointees, lobbyists and hangers-on have to stake out their own ground. But the era of Donald Trump is—as in so many respects—different. 
 

The center of Washington has become more of a draw for young professional transplants who want to drink and date and experience active social lives. The problem is, if you work for Trump, it’s also hostile territory. The president campaigned against the very idea of “Washington,” slammed cities as “war zones” and ran a racially charged campaign whose coded messages weren’t lost on the diverse, Democratic-leaning residents of D.C.’s buzzing neighborhoods. The bar-filled areas that became synonymous with young Washington in the Obama era—Columbia Heights, Shaw, U Street, H Street—are full of anti-Trump T-shirts and street art. Even old Republican redoubts like Spring Valley in upper Northwest aren’t very Trump-friendly.
 

So, what’s a young Trumpie to do? Many still do live in D.C., and to understand what their lives here are like, we interviewed more than 30 millennial staffers from the Trump White House and across the administration, both current and former (many have already left), as well as a smattering of their friends and outside observers. Nearly all spoke on the condition of anonymity, to talk candidly about their personal lives or because they were not authorized by their bosses to comment. They told us their horror stories about being heckled on the street and their struggles to get a date. Unlike their predecessors, who made their mark on the city’s social scene, they largely keep to themselves, more likely to hop between intimate apartment gatherings than to hit the town. “Instead of folks looking outward,” explains one young White House aide, “more folks look inward.”
 

Faced with open antagonism, Trump’s millennials over the past year and a half have quietly settled on the margins: a stretch of Washington that spans from the Wharf—a shiny new development three blocks south of the National Mall—southeast along the Waterfront and into Navy Yard, on the banks of the Anacostia River. It’s a string of neighborhoods that peer out over the water, separated from most of the city by an interstate, and facing away from official Washington. It’s a bubble within the Washington bubble: Here, young Trump staffers mix largely with each other and enjoy the view from their rooftop pools, where they can feel far away from the District’s locals and the rest of its political class.

It’s not all a tale of discomfort. Many shrug off the drawbacks by pointing out that at least they’re not in New York or back on their college campuses, where their politics were even less welcome. And they’re learning one lesson that every new wave of operators learns: In Washington—even in Trump’s Washington—as long as you have power, you can manage to feel popular somewhere.


It’s a fact of social Washington—or it has been up to now—that each administration’s junior staffers help to set the tone for D.C. “cool.” In the Clinton years, the diverse and lively Adams Morgan—one of a small number of neighborhoods not far from the White House that was affordable and relatively safe in the 1990s—became a hub for young appointees. The arrival of President George W. Bush in 2001 brought a new generation of country club Republicans, and a Texas-Southern flavor, to the city. Bush’s 20-something twin daughters and his youngest aides made the now-shuttered Georgetown bar Smith Point, where boat shoes and cocaine once abounded, and Glover Park’s Town Hall into centers of the social scene. Young, diverse Obama staffers, meanwhile, were on the front lines of gentrifying historically black neighborhoods around U Street, Columbia Heights and Shaw, often preferring group houses where they lived with lots of roommates and threw raucous parties. Regular basketball games, especially Tuesday nights at an Interior Department court, were another hallmark.
 

The young Bush and Obama crews mustered a visible social presence in part because so many of them had bonded on the campaign trail; by the time they got to Washington, they were a crowd. But Trump’s slapdash campaign was leaner, his team was thrown together on the fly, and it was riven by factions—meaning those staffers now in D.C. tend to keep a lower profile, in smaller groups. “With Trump, it’s not like there’s a huge contingent of New York people who came in. It’s geographically very disparate,” says a former Trump administration official. “They don’t seem to be leaving the impact on D.C. culturally that Bushworld did.”


The Trump Zones


Each administration’s junior staffers help to define their era’s brand of D.C. “cool,” in part based on where they live. In the Clinton, Bush and Obama years, young staffers generally settled in Washington’s central neighborhoods, but President Trump’s millennial aides have tended toward the city’s margins.







Illustration by John Jay Cabuay



Trump’s young crew have, by and large, avoided the heart of the city. Their prime stomping grounds, from the Wharf to Navy Yard, is a swath of real estate at once more sterile than the vibrant urban neighborhoods preferred by their predecessors and more sightly, with clean new apartment towers and waterfront views. Trump staffers cluster in upscale buildings like Lex & Leo next to the Waterfront Metro stop and Navy Yard’s One Hill South, which features two rooftop hot tubs and rents go as high as $3,000 a month for one-bedroom apartments. The president’s two most famous millennial aides, senior adviser Stephen Miller and former communications director Hope Hicks, both took up residence at CityCenter, in the heart of downtown within walking distance of the White House, an area where many Washingtonians work but relatively few live; at the opulent mixed-use development, majority-owned by the government of Qatar and studded with luxury storefronts, a studio apartment rents for about $3,000 a month.
 

Unlike most of the rest of D.C., where gentrifying newcomers find themselves rubbing shoulders with lifelong Washingtonians, this Wharf-to-Navy-Yard stretch is mostly devoid of true locals—meaning young staffers living there are less likely to be bothered by unwelcoming neighbors. Instead, you’ll find yuppies, tourists and affluent empty-nesters visiting from the suburbs. Stocked with brand-new boutiques and restaurants, as well as chains like Ben & Jerry’s, the area imports the feel of a high-end northern Virginia shopping plaza to D.C. Snobbier millennials might call it “basic.” In other words, it’s right in the comfort zone for staffers who are unabashedly Republican but also carry chips on their shoulders about the elite insiders they beat out in 2016.
 

“It’s not too ritzy,” a 30-year-old administration ally says of the Wharf, where he recently brunched with three White House staffers at Kirwan’s Irish Pub. “It’s not, like, as ritzy as Georgetown.”
 

When the Trump crowd ventures beyond those sprawling new apartment buildings, they tend toward eateries more upscale, conventional and close to work. The bar and steakhouse at the Trump International Hotel, of course, offer the most obvious safe space. Perhaps even more so than their predecessors, Trump’s young staffers also rely on old standbys near the White House: POV, the rooftop bar at the W Hotel that overlooks the White House; Old Ebbitt Grill, a quintessential antebellum Washington establishment; and Joe’s, a seafood and steak spot, are favorites. So are the nearby restaurant-bar The Hamilton and Blackfinn, a gastropub off Farragut Square. Some staffers prefer the Exchange Saloon, a no-frills sports bar just west of the White House. One young former Health and Human Services official confides that Rebellion, a Southern-themed establishment farther north, near U Street, is “one of the few closet Trump bars” in town.
 

Even before the era of ubiquitous cellphone cameras and viral social media scandal, young White House staffers sometimes stirred up trouble in public. After the 2008 election, photos emerged of Obama’s young speechwriter Jon Favreau groping a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton; years later, he was caught on camera again, this time playing drinking games shirtless with fellow staffer Tommy Vietor at a barbecue joint in Georgetown. Trump staffers are perhaps wary of these risks. No one wants to end up like Hope Hicks and White House staff secretary Rob Porter, whom paparazzi caught on a date this past winter. The attention was soon followed by allegations of previous spousal abuse by Porter, who quickly resigned; Hicks departed Washington soon afterward. The caution starts high on the food chain: When the White House arranged for a focus group of four young staffers to sit down with us and sound off on their lives in Washington, we arrived to learn that the session would take place “on background,” the ground rules more often used to brief reporters about sensitive matters of national security.
 

“There seems to be a lot of paranoia among people inside the White House that if they step out of line, that they will get their heads chopped off by the president’s Twitter feed,” says John Arundel, a magazine journalist and close observer of the Washington scene who says he has known Trump for 30 years. “They don’t want to be seen as acting inappropriately or being seen out with the wrong person. They feel like they’re targets.”
 

There are outliers, however, who choose to make a statement on the social circuit. In April, for the second year in a row, Trump decided to ditch the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in favor of a rally, but he encouraged his staffers to hit the town in his absence. They did, wearing their Trump affiliation on their sleeve, in one case almost literally: Caroline Sunshine, a 22-year-old Disney Channel star turned White House press assistant, showed up at the dinner in a custom-made dress adorned with a collage of tweets and press coverage about her recent hiring at the White House.


***

It’s not so surprising that Trump’s young aides keep to themselves given the politics of the city they’ve colonized. Only 4 percent of the District’s vote went to Trump in 2016; his next-worst showing was Hawaii, where he got nearly 30 percent of the vote. Trump’s inauguration drew a lackluster crowd, and his real welcome to the city came the next day, when hundreds of thousands of protesters stormed the Mall for the Women’s March. A constant stream of anti-Trump demonstrations has followed. Signs declaring “Love trumps hate” and other visible markers of the “resistance” are everywhere. Staffers leaving the White House grounds semi-regularly catch passersby flipping them the bird.
 

“I have gotten yelled at a few times walking out of work,” lamented one White House staffer. “I want to get home, not get in a debate in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue.”


“Trump supporters swipe left”—meaning “don’t even bother trying”—might be the single most common disclaimer on dating app profiles in Washington.
 

Sometimes, the easiest option is to hide their identities. While under normal circumstances, you could expect young White House officials to work their job titles into conversations at the earliest opportunity, the Trump crew has learned to use the types of dodges more commonly deployed by employees of the CIA. “I’ll just say I work for the federal government,” says a White House aide. After some conversations at bars on U Street and the Hill turned south when his Trump ties came up, one since-departed staffer has learned to reveal his White House past only as a last resort. “Even now, people have to ask five or six times before I say, ‘Yeah, I worked there,’” he says. When being vague doesn’t cut it, staffers can always straight-up lie, as one young administration official learned to do while working out of New York during the campaign. “I told people I was an auditor down on Wall Street, and people just stopped asking me questions after that,” he recalls.
 

When it comes to disclosing their affiliation with Trump, no ground is more fraught than courtship. “Trump supporters swipe left”—meaning “don’t even bother trying”—might be the single most common disclaimer on dating app profiles in Washington.
 

One beleaguered 31-year-old female administration official described at length her “very, very frequent” scraps with her matches on dating apps. “You do the small talk thing, and you have a very good conversation, and then they might say, ‘You didn’t vote for Trump, right?’” she says. “As soon as I say, ‘Of course I did,’ it just devolves into all-caps ‘HOW COULD YOU BE SUCH A RACIST AND A BIGOT?’ And ‘You’re going to take away your own birth control.’” In one recent star-crossed exchange, the official told a match she worked for the federal government. When he pushed, she revealed she was in the administration. He asked her, “Do you rip babies from their mothers and then send them to Mexico?”
 

Evasive answers will get you only so far, though, since many dating apps provide enough information for inquisitive users to sleuth out their matches’ identities. “I literally got the other day, ‘Thanks but no thanks. Just Googled you and it said you were a mouthpiece for the Trump administration. Go fuck yourself,’” says the official. It’s all enough to drive her and some of her colleagues away from at least some of the apps. “I’m no longer on Bumble,” she says.
 

Young staffers have had to develop a keen sense of just when to have “The Talk” with romantic partners. “I’ve still been able to hook up with women,” says a male former White House staffer. “But I know that I need to be careful about broaching the Trump stuff. I just know that going in, I need to be able to get it out at the right time and not get it out too early to the point where it’s like, ‘Hey, I worked for Trump, you should stop talking to me,’ but late enough in that eventually they know that there is this information floating out there that I worked for this guy and hopefully you have now seen that I’m not a horrible person and we can go further with this.”





Another former Trump White House aide says the experience of his single colleagues has given him a new appreciation for life in a committed relationship. “Thank God I’ve had a girlfriend of three years,” he says, “because the last person I would want to be is a single Trump supporter dating in D.C. right now.” Yet another former aide put the best possible spin on the predicament. “My grandmother used to joke that the key to dating is to just be interesting, and I think working in President Trump’s White House is the definition of interesting,” he says.
 

A common coping mechanism is to date within the administration, or go on intra-administration double dates. “Other couples often want to do double dates with Vanessa and I,” says Mike Ambrosini, 27, who served last year as special assistant to the president and director of the office of the chief of staff; his fiancΓ©e, Vanessa Morrone, also 27, is White House director of regional communications. Other Trump couples in the mix for the outings include Madeleine Westerhout, Trump’s executive assistant, and her boyfriend, Ben Schramm, a political appointee at the Pentagon and a former Marine social aide at the White House, as well as Giovanna Coia, a White House press assistant, and her boyfriend, John Pence, a senior adviser on Trump’s reelection campaign. Coia is also the cousin of White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, and Pence’s uncle, of course, is the vice president.


If there’s one thing young Trump staffers share with the legions of young political animals who came before them, it’s career ambition, and a willingness to put up with a lot to enjoy the fruits of their positions. The social ostracism that millennials in this administration face might be unique, but for the most part it’s just one more inconvenience to endure, along with long hours and relatively low pay.
 

For all the hostility and awkward Tinder conversations, they told us, Washington still has no shortage of people drawn to prestige. “At the end of the day, if they are part of the establishment and living in D.C., they usually want or need something from the White House, which can be kind of nice,” says one Trump staffer. “It’s a powerful building,” says another. “People respect it.” A junior administration official said some of his neighbors near the H Street corridor discovered he worked at the White House after seeing him on television; even they thought it was cool.
 

Besides, if you’re a young conservative, there are worse places to be than Washington. “Being a Republican at college was actually more difficult,” according to one young White House staffer who attended a large Midwestern state school. “People have been more hostile in New York,” adds a young veteran of the Trump campaign who moved down to Washington to work in the administration. “If you’re wearing a Trump jacket in New York, you’re going to get catcalls and stuff like that.”
 

As a former Trump appointee explains, her young peers in the administration are old enough to know that, as divisive as American politics is at this moment, some things about the capital never change. “They don’t care that people are hostile to Trump,” she says. “They still have some semblance of power and access, the things that matter in D.C.”

Trump administration moves on asylum abusers


Asylum was never meant to apply willy nilly to any cause.  Properly it was established to protect the potentially innocent from government abuse and that usually applied to folks fleeing ethnic cleansing allowed by the central government.
 
A good example today are minorities in failed states.  That is why we have a numbers problem.
 
Yet these usually are concentration camps awaiting the reestablishment of a central government.  That is what happened in Afghanistan after russia pulled out.
 
Now we have folks attempting to generate a free pass in using any ordinary excuse and this now gets shut down...

Trump administration moves on asylum abusers

Jun 18, 2018 | 
 
By Dan Stein

http://www.speroforum.com/a/HQTNJFVUGS49/83532-Trump-administration-moves-on-asylum-abusers?


U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions moved last week to restore integrity to U.S. asylum law. In a precedent-setting 31-page ruling, Sessions indicated that "Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum."

In recent years, there has been a surge of illegal immigrants entering claims for asylum based on dysfunctional personal relationships, dysfunctional governments in their homelands, and general social breakdown. But as Sessions noted, "The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes - such as domestic violence or gang violence - or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.

Under the Obama administration, mass immigration advocates successfully argued that victims of domestic violence should be considered a "social group," and therefore eligible for asylum. Sessions' ruling narrows the definition of a "social group." In order to qualify for asylum, claimants will now have to demonstrate that being part of an identifiable social group was the reason for their persecution (as the law intended), rather than acquiring social group status as a result of the acts committed against them.

The attorney general's ruling was precipitated by an exponential increase in asylum claims - from 5,000 in 2009 to 94,000 in 2016 - without evidence that circumstances had significantly deteriorated in the sending countries. Sessions did not deny that domestic violence and lawlessness are real problems, but he noted that "Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems - even all serious problems - that people face every day all over the world."

Friday, June 29, 2018

Qanon Last 3 Days - IRAN Plan



Yikes, it is getting hot and heavy for the past three days.  For those who are trying to believe the counter narrative that Q is a phony, understand that all through this we are pointed to key evidence we would never see otherwise. None of that evidence proves false, misinterpreted perhaps but it is certainly real enough.

 

Child pornography is suddenly jumped back in.  That is not going away, no matter how MSM ignores it all.  The spotlight is available and set upon every occurance now.

 

The fight to release the DOJ/FBI traffic related to the obvious plot to stop Trump is a simple continuation of the original treason and is now entering its last hours.  Recall that in November the  Marines went to the CIA to collect files, including the JFK files and likely information regarding drug assets.  This was denied but the silence regarding JFK since speaks volumes and tells me the Mil Intel now has it all.

 

Significant  military assets have been activated domestically.  Extensive planning will now be underway.  Understand that activation means issuing a top secret order and allows planning in particular, usually against a fixed jump off date.  Keep your head down.

 

Big news coming out of Iran.  It appears that the generals are also preparing for a major take down of the Mullahs.  Expect substantial support elements to arrive in the Persian gulf. I have no doubt that the majority of the people now completely oppose the mullahs who after all got control pretending to be supportive of democracy and then broke faith with the people.

 

Expect the Republican Guard to be quickly rounded up.

 

I find it disturbing that i would like to see a bloodbath of  Mullahs.  That may come about, but it is not something to be embraced and it is a test of our own spiritual progress.  Use this as a test of your own progress.

 

Once secular control is established, we can expect an open election to approve at least a constitutional congress.

 

 It also looks like we are getting all the traffic regarding Seth rich.  Likely from GOOGLE.

 


1620
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 3831d8 No.1940746 πŸ“

Anonymous ID: 1aeb38 No.1940664 πŸ“

>>1940595
>Focus on House floor vote (now).

ALREADY IN NOTABLES, Q!
House passes measure demanding DOJ documents
In a 226-183 vote, lawmakers approved the messaging measure, which calls on the DOJ to turn over all of the documents House Republicans have requested related to the FBI's handling of investigations during the 2016 presidential election.

The party-line vote, with one Republican voting present, puts the entire conference on the record in the escalating feud between the DOJ and House Republicans, who have been fighting for months for access to a trove of highly-sensitive documents.
thehill.com/homenews/house/394604-house-passes-measure-demanding-doj-documents
>>1940664
Who brought the bill to the floor?
Read between the lines.

Q


1610
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 19fdc8 No.1929453 πŸ“

Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 19fdc8 No.1929392 πŸ“

ARE YOU AWAKE?
MSM = propaganda tool of the D party.
POTUS economy - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS job creating (record) - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS GPD - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS fair trade (protect America) - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS manufacturing - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS record low unemployment - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS tax reform (more take home money) - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS save the world from NK - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS stock market gains - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS undo harmful regulations - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS boost US energy dominance - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS protect US homeland - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS combatting opioids - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS accountability (audit Pentagon, SC, re-org executive branch etc.) - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS protecting life - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS helping Veterans - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS peace through strength - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS restore confidence/respect of US - not good enough - IMPEACH.
………………..all while under constant attack.
DO YOU NOT BELIEVE THE TRUTH IS SPREADING?
DO YOU NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE LOSING THEIR SLAVE GRIP HOLD?
DO YOU NOT BELIEVE WE ARE WINNING?http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/06/27/poll-72-of-americans-believe-establishment-media-intentionally-report-fake-news/πŸ“
'SILENT' MAJORITY NO MORE.
FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
WWG1WGA!!!!!
WHAT A WONDERFUL DAY.
Q
>>1929392
GDP error.
Link to article placed incorrectly.
Busy day!
Q
1609
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 19fdc8 No.1929392 πŸ“
ARE YOU AWAKE?
MSM = propaganda tool of the D party.
POTUS economy - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS job creating (record) - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS GPD - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS fair trade (protect America) - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS manufacturing - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS record low unemployment - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS tax reform (more take home money) - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS save the world from NK - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS stock market gains - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS undo harmful regulations - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS boost US energy dominance - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS protect US homeland - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS combatting opioids - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS accountability (audit Pentagon, SC, re-org executive branch etc.) - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS protecting life - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS helping Veterans - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS peace through strength - not good enough - IMPEACH.
POTUS restore confidence/respect of US - not good enough - IMPEACH.
………………..all while under constant attack.
DO YOU NOT BELIEVE THE TRUTH IS SPREADING?
DO YOU NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE LOSING THEIR SLAVE GRIP HOLD?
DO YOU NOT BELIEVE WE ARE WINNING?http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/06/27/poll-72-of-americans-believe-establishment-media-intentionally-report-fake-news/πŸ“
'SILENT' MAJORITY NO MORE.
FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
WWG1WGA!!!!!
WHAT A WONDERFUL DAY.
Q
1608
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: d98603 No.1928420 πŸ“
“I will not be filing for re-election to Congress nor seeking any other political or elected office; instead I will be returning to the justice system,” Gowdy said in a statement.
Should we add him to the list?

Q
1605
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 1a8b54 No.1926130 πŸ“
PS "Texts taken out of context"
PS "While emotional over the election, I conduct myself w/ upmost integrity w/o bias while undertaking any such investigation, especially a high-profile case against the POTUS."
PS "In hindsight, it was a bad idea to openly discuss my feelings, but, in no way did those feelings impact my ability to conduct a fair and proper investigation - we followed where the "facts" took us."
PS "I decline to answer that question on advice from counsel."
: When you state "where 'facts' led us" - what 'facts' are you referring to? To date, there has been zero evidence of any such collusion or connections between the Trump campaign and Russia." In fact, the only facts discovered thus far have been between the Clinton camp and Russia and other foreign groups…."
PS "On advice of counsel, I decline to answer that question"
PS "Because of the ongoing investigation, such answers may violate the security of such investigations………."
: "Mr S, I believe nobody here is buying what you are selling. I believe there was/is a serious effort on the part of people more senior than you to remove Mr Trump from office out of fear of what this Administration may uncover. I believe you are being dishonest in your answers and frankly shocked you agreed to come here today. I believe everyone on this panel (minus those from the other side of the aisle) knew exactly what your answers would be and if you think we are going to sit here and accept these answers you would be a foolish. We are also following the facts and once we uncover more (which we will) we will act accordingly. I'm glad you retained counsel - you'll need one and hopefully they are very good."
………………….
Q
1604
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 1a8b54 No.1925892 πŸ“
We stand w/ the good people of IRAN who are currently battling their 'installed' regime for FREEDOM.
TRUE RULE, THE PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER.
RISE UP and DEMAND THEY BE REMOVED.
At some point military generals will act w/ the will of the people simply because their soldiers ARE THOSE SAME PEOPLE and have no choice.
We stand with you.
We are monitoring the situation closely.

Stay safe.
God bless.
Q
1603
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 079dd1 No.1925521 πŸ“

Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 079dd1 No.1925332 πŸ“

>>1925226
If you continue to proceed down this dangerous path only know that we are prepared.
You should know this based on earlier drops re: SA / Nat Guard / MIL Assets activate US soil.
The game is over when the public knows.
The fight to keep the LIGHTS OFF is all that matters to you.
You will FAIL.
The AMERICAN PEOPLE are AWAKE.
You lost CONTROL.
SHEEP NO MORE.
You underestimated their resolve and their ability to free-think away from the pipeline narrative.
We will DECLAS.
We will shine LIGHT.
THERE IS NOWHERE TO HIDE.
No amount of money, influence, or power can stop this.
Our rights to secure and protect at all costs then become justified.
We stand at the ready.
RED WAVE.
WHITE SQUALL.
IN GOD WE TRUST.

Q
>>1925332
If you are smart (stupid) you know what just occurred at the meeting in Russia.
Attempts to frame Russia / POTUS (optics) are failing and will soon be exposed.

[Objective] to keep POTUS away from PUTIN failed.
Bolton + PUTIN should scare you.
Enemies are allies.
EVIL has no place here.
America is no longer for sale.
The age of taxing our citizens across the World while entry to our markets is FREE is OVER.
The WORLD will UNITE in this cause (G v E/R v W).

Forced immigration pushers will be exposed (the 'why').
Read the BIBLE.
GOD WINS.

Q
1602
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 079dd1 No.1925332 πŸ“

Anonymous ID: f7e6dc No.1925226 πŸ“
 πŸ‡Ή   ⬇ 
IMG_2222.PNG

This tweet struck me as odd.. almost as if it were a marker of sorts
>>1925226
If you continue to proceed down this dangerous path only know that we are prepared.
You should know this based on earlier drops re: SA / Nat Guard / MIL Assets activate US soil.
The game is over when the public knows.
The fight to keep the LIGHTS OFF is all that matters to you.
You will FAIL.
The AMERICAN PEOPLE are AWAKE.
You lost CONTROL.
SHEEP NO MORE.
You underestimated their resolve and their ability to free-think away from the pipeline narrative.
We will DECLAS.
We will shine LIGHT.
THERE IS NOWHERE TO HIDE.
No amount of money, influence, or power can stop this.
Our rights to secure and protect at all costs then become justified.
We stand at the ready.
RED WAVE.
WHITE SQUALL.
IN GOD WE TRUST.
Q


1589
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 388aee No.1916147 πŸ“

Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 388aee No.1915880 πŸ“

>>1915774
Coincidence?
Review image/location.
Nothing provided is random.
SFO>JFK
A321
Direct
Q
>>1915880
Signal sent.
Attempt still made.
Averted.
Do you believe it’s a coincidence extreme rhetoric is being pushed while at the same time [RR] is on the brink of collapse?
Define.
[RR] must either comply with all document demands or face impeachment.
2-way failure.

If he complies, he fails (self-implication)(known conflict).
If he failes to comply, he gets impeached (removed).
Why no DOJ texts disclosed to the public?
RR to LL "……………"
LL to H "……………"
X to X "………………….."
JC to LL 247x (relevant)
LL IS KEY to CONNECTING TO WH / HRC/BC/JB/JC/SP/EH…..
Where are the JC / AM text messages?
Gmail messages?
Burner phone messages?
Call pulls?
Coming soon to a theater near you.
PS/LP texts are only scratching the surface.
Threats of assassination?
They are preparing for this by activating progressive activists.

RED LINE.
Once the documents are supplied and viewed by Senate and Congressional leaders (& the public), they LOSE.
SET UP.
SCAM.
FISA.
ABUSE OF EXEC POWERS.
ILLEGAL SPYING.
FRAME.
INSERT ASSETS.
Prevent AT ALL costs.
Traitors ALL.

THEY KNOW WE KNOW.
BUT UNTIL THE PUBLIC KNOWS IT IS CONTAINED.
THE PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER.

MSM will portray progressive activists as a large part of the pop – this is FALSE.
No possibility of compromise.
Do not underestimate our resolve.
We stand at the ready.
Q