The American Revolution was inspired by one book entitled Common Sense by Thomas Paine. We even find British political tokens with the saying “END OF PAIN“, which was obviously a pun on his name. He was demonized by the British as the man who inspired the Revolution. According to this intense studies of the Continental Army at Valley Forge, the average age of George Washington’s soldiers in 1777 was between 20 and 25. That was the average because the youth who joined were 16 to 18. The last verified surviving American veteran of the war was John Gray of Virginia who joined the Continental Army at the age of just 16 in 1780. George Washington himself wrote: that “to place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff.” Of the New England militia, Washington wrote, “Their officers generally speaking are the most indifferent kind of people I ever saw.” Militia privates ignored commands issued by officers of the Regular Army, which disturbed Washington. The common age of a Continental soldier was quite young. One historian found that in nine New Jersey towns nearly 75% of boys who were just fifteen and sixteen. There are accounts of people such as artilleryman Jeremiah Levering who entered the service at twelve or thirteen, and hundreds more under the legal age of sixteen served in all services. Thousands more were under twenty. It was the youth who are inspired and do not appreciate the tragedy of war.

If we look at the Russian Revolution, again we find a critical book that was at the root of the split entitled What is to be Done?  Lenin wrote this work while serving a sentence of exile. The book was first published in Germany during 1902, but it was outlawed for publication and distribution in Russia. Lenin totally rejected the standpoint that the “proletariat” who he regarded as workers or working-class people collectively. This class in Roman times were called the plebeians. The proletariat, Lenin argued, was being driven spontaneously to revolutionary Socialism by capitalism itself, which he further contended had predisposed the workers to the acceptance of of Marxism.

Lenin also took the position that the case for workers will not spontaneously become Marxists simply by fighting battles over wages with their employers. Lenin argued that Marxists needed to form a political party to publicize their ideas and persuade workers to become Marxists. Lenin then took a step further arguing that to understand politics you must understand all of society, not just workers and their economic struggles with their employers. Therefore, to move the workers to become political and to become Marxists, they needed to learn about all of society, not just their own small corner of within it.

This is very important to understand because this is the same precise formula in operation today among the American youth. They are not the “workers” for most are simply students. They would not respond the the traditional class struggle of the early 20th century when the industrial revolution was just beginning and the confrontation between workers and employers were a major battle. Lacking that sort of class-struggle amount children who are not even employed, can only be accomplished precisely as Lenin argued, only from without. They would not spontaneously respond to poor working conditions since they do not work. The sphere from which a revolution can arise becomes possible only by obtaining knowledge is the sphere of interrelations between all classes on a theoretical basis. They do not understand the principle that Wall Street raises money to fund small business helping them grow to create jobs and the economy. Instead, the bankers engaged in proprietary trading are viewed as “Wall Street” when in fact they are simply speculators who bribe politicians.
Lenin also made it clear that a revolution would only be achievable by the strong leadership of one person or a select few over the masses. Lenin set forth that once the revolution had successfully overthrown the government, this individual leader must release power, to allow socialism to fully encompass the nation. Lenin’s view of a socialist intelligentsia demonstrated that he was departing from Marxist theory in this regard. Lenin agreed with the Marxist idea of eliminating social classes creating the idea of a French commune from where Marx derived his theory, but Lenin saw a ruling class should maintain control creating distinctions between those in politics and the people not much different from our Western political classes. Lenin did not effectively support the Marxist theory of a  classless society. The party split of Bolsheviks (majority) and Mensheviks (minority) in 1903, the differences originally began to surface with the publication of What is to be Done? Mensheviks generally tended to be more moderate and were more positive towards the liberal opposition and the dominant peasant-based Socialist Revolutionary party whereas the Bolsheviks saw the need for a strong political ruling class.

As discussed in What is to be Done?, Lenin clearly believed that a rigid political structure was necessary to effectively initiate a formal revolution and to maintain it. This idea was met with opposition from his once close followers including Julius Martov, Georgy Plekhanov, Leon Trotsky, and Pavel Axelrod. Plekhanov and Lenin’s major dispute arose addressing the topic of nationalizing land or leaving it for private use. Lenin wanted to nationalize everything to aid in collectivization to be centrally controlled by the political class. Plekhanov thought worker motivation would remain higher if individuals were able to maintain their own property, which was true.

The average party member was very young and that was the entire key to brainwash the youth who had no experience in life to understand their were really surrendering personal values and freedom to the political class as they are doing once against in the United States. In 1907, 22% of Bolsheviks were all under 20, with a staggering 37% were all just 20–24. Only about 16% were between the ages of 25 to 29. Therefore, 75% of the Bolsheviks were under 30 years old. The total membership was 8,400 in 1905, rising to 13,000 in 1906 and 46,100 by 1907.

Therefore, beware of the youth. They are easily influenced and will have little regard for life for they will see themselves throughout history as the great reformers. They will not listen to Trump nor will they give him a chance for the majority of newspapers and mainstream media will attack Trump at every possible opportunity since they are bought and paid for by the establishment. We are witnessing the second American Revolution in its infancy. The United States will break apart as was the case with Rome. Note the reverse of the the first Gallic Emperor Postumus (259-268AD). He is raising the female symbol of Gaul promising restoration of the norm – sound familiar? CHANGE!

George Washington became president on February 4th, 1789. The beginning of the Decline & Fall of the United States began with the swearing in of Obama 224 years later – January 20th, 2013. The peak in government came with 2015.75 insofar as the visible “confidence” in government. The first opportunity where the United States will break apart will be 23 years from 2013 and that will perhaps by the Pi target from the 2032 high – 3.14 years later bringing us to 2036.

We should then see the shift of the financial capital of the world to Asia with the rise of both India and China. The seed of this breakup are being planted right now by both Obama and Hillary. Their Marxist philosophies were what destroyed both China and Russia. They are directly responsible for the collapse in world GDP growth. The refugee invasion into Europe is akin to the invasion of the barbarians into the Roman Empire. Both groups had little respect for the culture and open contempt for much of it. They are not interested as a whole in adopting the European culture, they are intent upon imposing their own upon Europe. The great divide in the United States will get much worse and Hillary will be the spokesperson to lead the nation into socialist chaos.

Centralized government is the doom of humankind. It is people like Hillary and Obama who have, as Thomas Paine observed, “confounded society with government, as to leave no distinction between them.” Their goal is to eliminate personal freedom and impose their doctrine by sheer force. The Puritans imposed the same policies in England after their revolution they called “Glorious” after beheading the king. They made it a felony to kiss your wife in public, outlawed sports because it led to cursing, outlawed plays for they were filled with lies, and outlawed Christmas because you should be praying not giving gifts and partying. (see Roots of Evil). Whenever one group thinks it has the right to impose its philosophy upon the whole, civil war breaks out historically.

Hillary Clinton in her first public speech since losing the election at the Washington gala for the Children’s Defense Fund,told people to fight against Trump and effectively has encouraged her supporters to revolt. She said: “I ask you to stay engaged. Stay engaged on every level. We need you. America needs you. Your energy, your ambition, your talent. That’s how we get through this.”

“I know that over the past week a lot of people have asked themselves whether America is the country we thought it was. The divisions laid bare by the election run deep,” she continued. “But please listen to me when I say this: America is worth it. Our children are worth it. Believe in our country, fight for our values and never, ever give up.”

This is why neither Hillary nor Obama have spoke out against the civil unrest rising in the United States. Their propaganda is indeed setting the state for the future breakout of the United States we warned would be on the horizon going into 2032.

President Ford granted former President Richard M. Nixon an unconditional pardon for all Federal crimes that he “committed or may have committed or taken part in” while in office. Ford said his pardon was intended to spare Mr. Nixon and the nation further punishment in the Watergate scandals. This establishes the precedent and answers the question whether Obama will or even could pardon Hillary. If he words this pardon in the same manner, Hillary can escape tax evasion, treason, whatever.

The more interesting problem, as I have stated before, I see her crime more as TREASON and it does not center on her emails, but the Clinton Foundation. That means in my judgment, that the exposure extends to Bill and Chelsea as well. Indeed, anyone working at the Clinton Foundation engaging in pay-for-play taking money from foreign governments could be charged with TREASON. If anything emerged that linked Obama to future kick-backs, then and only then would there be a Constitutional Crisis concerning the question can Obama pardon someone for a crime in which he participated?

I would have to say that the dark cloud over the Clinton Foundation, which has been a money laundering operation, will be reason for Obama to pardon Hillary on his last day. Keep in mind that Obama can ONLY pardon Hillary for Federal crimes. Therefore, the State of New York could prosecute Hillary on a host of issues if they had the guts. The very purpose of a pardon is stated in the Department of Justice rules:

In addition, you should bear in mind that a presidential pardon is ordinarily a sign of forgiveness and is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or release from confinement. A pardon is not a sign of vindication and does not connote or establish innocence. For that reason, when considering the merits of a pardon petition, pardon officials take into account the petitioner’s acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement for the offense.

In this case, there is no conviction. Obama has refused to say whether he is considering a pardon for Hillary according to White House spokesman Josh Earnest. Nixon had to accept the pardon and still acknowledge that acceptance. Ford eventually agreed, and on September 8, 1974, he granted Nixon a “full, free, and absolute pardon”, which ended any possibility of an indictment. Nixon then released a statement:

I was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate, particularly when it reached the stage of judicial proceedings and grew from a political scandal into a national tragedy. No words can describe the depth of my regret and pain at the anguish my mistakes over Watergate have caused the nation and the presidency, a nation I so deeply love, and an institution I so greatly respect.

Consequently, precedent still dictates that Hillary would have to admit guilt and remorse as did Richard Nixon. That may be even harder for her to do than wearing purple. It would end her political career and influence. However, given her tenacity, she would choose her words very carefully and the marginalize whatever she admits as forced by Trump. This still would leave Bill and Chelsea exposed, so would Obama then pardon both of them as well? That would clearly concede that the crime is pay-for-play and not the emails.