To Q or not to Q? Red pills, Rabbit holes, & Reflections

By Vin Suprynowicz

(Brunette here.) Chances are, by now you’ve at least heard of “Q” (AKA “Qanon”): an 8chan poster who appears to be intimately familiar with the Trump administration. Whether to take Q seriously is a personal decision: As Q says, “The choice, to know, will be yours.” If you’re curious, good for you — the world needs more curiosity and less ideological rigidity. 😉

Q frequently links to this short video: “This video will get Donald Trump elected” — please listen to that before reading further, *however* you feel about Trump (especially if you’re ‘on the fence’, or dislike him without being clear as to why.) It’s beautifully done, and a brilliant summary of Trump’s mission as POTUS. Essential viewing!

Having watched the video, has your perception of Trump-the-man changed at all (and if so, how?) Before diving into Q, try a thought experiment with me:

Imagine YOU are Donald Trump. You’ve said for years, when repeatedly asked in interviews, that you DON’T want to run for president . . . “It’s a mean life” (as it surely is) and you’re happy with your extraordinarily successful life, family, and business empire. You do care deeply about your country and hope that SOMEONE who understands the problems facing America will rise to the occasion and run for office. You watch as successive administrations become increasingly incompetent and corrupt, to the point where the America you love is teetering on the verge of an engineered collapse — economic, cultural, and moral — into an abyss of despair and decay. You decide to do something about it.

You run for POTUS, and somehow in spite of intractable resistance you WIN . . . and that’s where the fun REALLY begins. After all, you have all those campaign promises to keep, and you intend to keep them. 

All the odds are, seemingly, stacked against you. Left and right, the establishment seeks to undermine you. MSM at first treats your campaign like a joke, then as an unmitigated disaster, and lastly (rightly) as an existential threat. Academia and the arts & entertainment industries, long dominated by the so-called liberal left, lurch from laughter to loathing; from boisterous marches to violent protests; from constant and exhausting outrage to rabid panic. Fake News is NOT your friend, quite the opposite. Hollywood hates you so much that their masks drop; and Academia deliberately displays ignorance and intolerance toward you and all who support you (or even offer you an open mind.)

Further, you know that your adversaries — many of them highly placed in government and/or the media — will stop at nothing to harm you, your loved ones, and even ordinary supporters. You also know there are many good people trapped by (and beneath) a rotten system, and what you most need to do is remind those good people of the power they possess — revive their spirits, lift their voices, renew their hopes, inspire them to dream of a brighter future. You know with their help, you’ll be successful — but you WILL need their help, and wish to earn their trust, in order to achieve the Herculean mission of “Draining the swamp.” A labor of love if there ever was one. 

Now that you’ve perhaps gained an inkling of what it must be like to be in Donald Trump’s shoes, on to Q . . .

What Q represents, to my mind, is:

A) An effort on the part of the Trump administration to be transparent in ways that would otherwise be impossible. To give concerned citizens a peek behind the scenes, without revealing too much detail about ongoing investigations or prosecutions (of which there are likely many.)

B) Crowdsourcing a ‘people’s investigation’ throughout the 8chan and various social media communities; energizing dedicated researchers who dig up revealing details and make significant connections from open (if obscure) sources: a brilliant strategy to bring shady dealings and shadowy figures toward the light. (At zero taxpayer expense; bypassing a corrupt FBI, etc. Genius.)

C) Q serves as an inspiration and mentor to many younger people hungry for male guidance; and I suspect will ultimately prove an effective recruitment tool to attract “the best and the brightest” to careers where they’ll eventually replace corrupt swamp dwellers among the intelligence agencies, diplomatic branches, and the military, etc. Again, an elegantly brilliant strategy once you grasp it.

So who IS Q? Well, the fun part is . . . no one really knows, although there’s lots of speculation. I suspect Q is a team of several people, one of whom would be Trump himself and maybe other family members. Apparently Q intends to reveal his/her/their identity at some point . . . though I’m rather enjoying the mystery of it all. 🙂

When I initially encountered references to “Q” (or “Qanon”) online back in November, I didn’t pay much attention. After all, such mysterious ‘inside sources’ seem to pop up regularly online and generally I consider them a (sometimes entertaining, sometimes treacherous) diversion, but not worth a substantial investment of time and/or attention. As well, some people I think highly of were dismissive — I can certainly understand people who don’t want to be bothered, and prefer to follow their own drummer. Nothing wrong with that. 😉

What eventually did catch my attention about Q, was that he/she/they vaguely reminded me of some Cicada 3301 puzzles that I’d also found quite intriguing. Secondly, I found that I *LIKED* Q. Having spent much of the last few years exploring various rabbit holes, I found that Q’s posts (referred to as ‘drops’ or ‘crumbs’) — cryptic as they often are — rang true for me; somehow it made dark (but familiar) territory less depressing to see Q shining light into places that desperately needed a spotlight.

It’s probably fair to say that most people (sensibly) won’t crawl down dim and dismal rabbit holes — the flip-side of that is that many remain blissfully ignorant of serious problems plaguing the world, governments, and social institutions. Those of us who  are determined enough to venture into dark places often feel alone and our efforts unappreciated. That’s where Twitter came in for me — I don’t have a Twitter account (@jack and his team’s shenanigans would drive me NUTS!) but it’s a fantastic place to lurk and discover like minds and kindred souls.

It’s also a good way to track the Q drops or “crumbs” free from the bewildering environment of 8chan boards — I’ll occasionally venture there, but even as a lurker find it overwhelming — and appreciate the many Twitter users who do follow the /Qresearch board and share their findings with the rest of us. A few of my favorites:

@LisaMei62 — Lisa Mei does a great job and is a go-to source for me. @FedupWithSwamp — Swampy is feisty and fun, another good source. @PrayingMedic — Praying Medic (Dave) is thoughtful and assembles detailed, comprehensive Q threads as well as videos and blog posts. @2RunTheRace — Aside from actual Q posts, she also spotlights interesting snippets of conversation and conjecture from the boards, a big plus at times. @intheMatrixxx is another good one, with lots of memes.

Q posts can be found at — the site periodically updates automatically, or refresh the page for new posts. (Q does not post every day, or on a discernible schedule. Some days there are many posts, other times only one or two, and some days — even weeks — there are none.) is a recent but growing collection of ‘proofs’ for doubters and Q-newcomers. Also see this page of Q proofs (click images to enlarge.)

Neon Revolt is a more traditional blog that covers Q material. Worth checking out.

Just a brief Q-introduction above for anyone who’s interested. The past two years have changed me a great deal, for readers who find this post surprising. It’s no secret I’ve never been a fan of government — although I LIKED Reagan, and for a year or two got fired up over some local Libertarian campaigns — even I am surprised to find myself so firmly behind Trump and his people. It’s always been important to me to remember that people are first of all individuals, and both good and bad people are found in all walks of life. Trump has made an effort to surround himself with good and competent people; meanwhile, he seems clear-eyed about the nature of evil and its grip on institutions both here in the U.S.A. and abroad.

And truth to tell, I (like many others) pretty much always took western civilization for granted . . . until I saw how close we were to losing it, out of sheer obliviousness. Eight years of Barack Obama was bad enough, so I thought — but I didn’t know the half of it, and as much as I disliked the Clintons, I didn’t fully appreciate the magnitude of the danger we the American people faced. (Those facts will emerge, over time.) I’m afraid many people still don’t see Trump the way I do — which is just as well; he’s so much smarter than the foes allied against him — his chief strength (IMO) is an uncanny ability to weaponize the stupidity and narrow mindedness of others, it’s a joy to behold! All he has to do is be himself, and let their true selves emerge in response to him. Trump, the touchstone . . . 😉

Lastly, to those who might respond that Q is a “LARP” or a hoax, think what you want. Decide for yourself, not for anyone else. I’ll respect your decision; respect mine. It’s not the Q proofs, compelling as they are, that tell me Q is the real deal, but my gut — Q is an extension of Trump, in one way or another, and I “get” Trump. It’s as useless as arguing with an atheist about God or a leftist about politics. If you think Q is a waste of time, don’t waste yours — and don’t waste mine either, OK? Thanks. 😉

My purpose in writing this is twofold: primarily to introduce Q to a potentially (slightly) wider audience; secondarily, I am SURE there are readers who are concerned about kids, spouses, or friends who’ve become avid Q followers, and wonder what the fuss is all about. Maybe my thoughts will help, though I recommend you look into Q for yourself. 🙂

I thank God for this man, and for Q too . . . and God bless everyone (who won’t hate me for it, that is. LOL.)



When do we start counting lamp posts and measuring hemp?

By Vin Suprynowicz

Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California wants to ban “assault weapons” (by which he means semi-automatic hunting and target rifles, of course), install a federal gun “buy-back program” for those who own them (think you’d get to name your own price?), and criminally prosecute those who refuse to hand them over, reported Robert Donachie on the Daily Caller Web site on May 3.

The collectivist congresscritter wrote an op-ed published that date in USA Today, recommending that the federal government take “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” away from law-abiding citizens and threaten them with jail if they refuse.

“Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed,” Swalwell whined. “This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come. Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”

Wow! Whose weapons do your suppose the Congresscritter would grab first? Those of the FBI? The BATF? The 101st Airborne?

At least the Democrats aren’t hypocrites. In blatant defiance of the Constitution they laughingly swear to “protect and defend,” they’ve wanted to disarm us so they could treat us like Hitler treated the Jews, like Stalin treated the independent farmers of the Ukraine, for more than 80 years, now.

More dangerous — because the traitor moves smilingly among us, disguising his intent — are elected so-called Republicans who pose as defenders of the Second Amendment, but then cave as soon as the socialist teachers’ unions load some schoolkids up in buses and haul them to the capital (kids most of whom literally couldn’t tell you in what decade the Revolutionary War was fought, who we fought it against, the name of our commanding general, or even how to load a rifle), to chant and screech that they want “more gun control”

“The post-Parkland gun control push may have netted zero action in Congress but it has certainly found takers in one of the most unlikely of places,” reported AWR Hawkins of Breitbart News on May 15. “Five Republican Governors have surrendered ground on gun control or made clear their intentions to do so.”

The state-level slide toward gun control began in Florida, where Gov. Rick Scott (RINO) signed a $400 million gun control bill into law. Breitbart News reported that the gun controls included firearm confiscation orders, waiting period for long gun purchases, and an increase in the minimum purchase age from 18 to 21.

(Just because they’re thus banned from owning a weapon with which they could otherwise practice the most vital skill of a combat soldier on weekends, 18-, 19- and 20-year-old Floridians enlisted in the U.S. Army or Marines have nothing to worry about: When the time comes they can always just point their index finger at the ululating attacker with the Kalashnikov, and say “bang.” Or, alternatively, undo their fly and threaten their armed assailant with their other gun — the one Gov. Scott hasn’t yet gotten around to taking away.)

The Los Angeles Times reported the measure Rick Scott signed also banned bump stocks, although they were not even used in the Parkland school shooting.

On April 12, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (RINO) signed a massive package of gun controls into law. Those controls included a ban on private gun sales and bump stocks, though neither private gun sales nor bump stocks were contributors to the Parkland attack.

Scott’s gun controls also bar law-abiding citizens from owning “high capacity” magazines, by which the Vermont lawmakers mean the normal 13-, 20- and 30-round magazines with which many modern weapons were originally designed to function.

“Ironically, Phil Scott was able to win his gubernatorial race by proclaiming he saw no need for more gun control in the state of Vermont,” Hawkins of Breitbart reports. On June 22, 2016, he told Vermont Public Radio, “I don’t believe that we need more gun restrictions in Vermont at this time. I think we should enforce the ones we have. I think we should focus more on safety and gun education, but also addressing the violence problem that is systemic across the country -– and I don’t have the answers for that, but that’s what’s driving this frustration, this outrage.”

On April 24, the Huffington Post reported that Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (RINO) signed a bill which bans bump stocks and implements a law to allow police to confiscate firearms.

On May 14, Breitbart reported that Gov. Bruce Rauner (RINO) proposed confiscation laws for his state of Illinois, as well as a tripling of the 24-hour waiting period on gun purchases. Rauner wants law-abiding citizens to wait 72 hours before being allowed to pick up their guns at the store and take them home. Real handy for a woman who learns she’s being stalked by a would-be rapist or murderer. Could her surviving children at least sue Gov. Raunder for disarming their mom? No. That’s why we call Bruce Rauner and his gang “rape enablers.”

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (RINO) had the opportunity to roll back gun controls and regulations via permitless carry legislation that reached her desk in early May. Instead on May 11 she vetoed the measure, thereby preserving the requirement that law-abiding citizens must apply for and obtain written permission from their state government before being allowed to exercise their firearm rights.

NRA-ILA executive director Chris Cox responded to Fallin’s veto: “Gov. Mary Fallin vetoed this important piece of self-defense legislation,” after promising to support similar legislation during her campaign. “Make no mistake,” Cox said, “this temporary setback will be rectified when Oklahoma residents elect a new, and genuinely pro-Second Amendment governor.”


Gov. Fallin said something interesting as she betrayed her constituents and her oath of office on May 11 — something I’d like to focus on for a moment.

Anders Hagstrom of the Daily Caller Web site reported on May 13: “Republican Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin vetoed legislation Friday that would’ve allowed anyone in the state to carry firearms without a permit, claiming the current barriers to getting a gun are ‘few and reasonable.’

“Fallin stressed that she is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and owns firearms herself, but she claimed removing the permit requirement would have an adverse effect on policing.”

“SB 1212 eliminates the current ability of Oklahoma law enforcement to distinguish between those carrying guns who have been trained and vetted, and those who have not,” Fallin said in a statement. “Oklahomans believe that law-abiding individuals should be able to defend themselves. I believe the firearms requirement we currently have in state law are few and reasonable. Senate Bill 1212 eliminates the training requirements for persons carrying a firearm in Oklahoma. It reduces the level of the background check necessary to carry a gun.”

But here’s the thing, ma’am: The fact that you inherited grandpa’s squirrel gun or a black-powder wallhanger and that you call yourself “a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment” doesn’t mean a thing. It won’t save you from (depending on where final justice is meted out) either hell or the gallows.

Holders of public office in the United States don’t get to decide whether or not they are, or want to be, “staunch supporters of the Second Amendment.” Their oath of office leaves them no choice in the matter, making such a pronouncement about as meaningful as bragging “You can trust me; I breathe air and drink water!”

I’ve examined many copies of the Bill of Rights — an integral part of the Constitution all you folks swear a binding oath before God to “protect and defend.” And I have never seen a copy with the added clause, “except that we can enact and enforce all the infringements we want, as long as we — and a minimum of five leftist politicians dressed up in black dresses and calling themselves ‘Supreme Court justices’ — decide those infringements are ‘few and reasonable.’”

It simply ain’t there. When you were administered that oath, you were free to say, “You know, I haven’t really stopped to read this ‘Constitution’ you mention. Could we postpone this for 40 minutes or so while I sit down and read it through?” It’s in plain English. You were responsible to read it and understand it, yourself. You could have refused and walked away. Instead, you voluntarily swore to protect and defend it, not REWRITE it.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution has just two clauses. Any reputable grammarian or legal scholar will confirm for you that the introductory clause doesn’t restrict or limit the effect of the operative clause, but it does explain WHY we have a second Amendment. The introductory clause states “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .”

What does that mean?

Our founding fathers knew there were damned few “free states” in the world of the 1780s — though they might have numbered king-less Switzerland among them. They knew a people could remain free for any period of time only if the vast body of the able-bodied citizens (they would have said “men”, but if able-bodied women want to volunteer for militia service today, it’s fine by me) own and are free to carry around armaments of military usefulness which are EQUAL OR SUPERIOR TO any and all armaments likely to be deployed by the elements of any standing army which the central government can or might choose to send against them, with the aim to deprive them (us) of our rights or liberties.

(Remember, although he likely would have been happy to seize muskets as well, what General Gage was mostly aiming to confiscate when he sent Lt. Col. Francis Smith and 700 Redcoats to Lexington and Concord were the civilians’ CANNON, POWDER, AND SHOT. Those “civilians” owned functional, state-of-the-art CANNON. Now that we Americans have won our freedom from King George, where do I go to buy and haul home my functional 155 mm. howitzer, with ammo?)

And the second clause, of course, states “. . . The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Leaving aside that nonsense about your Oklahoma government police “being able to distinguish between those carrying guns who have been trained and vetted, and those who have not” (How? Oklahomans with concealed-carry permits will now have to wear bright pink “Pussy Hats,” visible from 60 yards?), let me sum up for you what this clause means, bit–, er, that is to say, Governor Fallin, ma’am:

It means that, if hell-bound oathbreakers and traitors like you hadn’t spent the past 85 years enacting and enforcing some 20,000 to 40,000 overlapping, interlocking, state, local, and federal “gun control” laws (the ones you simper and prance and call “few and reasonable”), today I would be free to drive downtown to the nearest gun store, pull up to the drive-through window, and without signing my name or showing any “ID” or suffering any “waiting period,” purchase for cash a “newly manufactured for civilian use,” belt-fed 30-millimeter cannon (from which it’s been estimated that four to six rounds well placed should be adequate to shoot down any attacking government helicopter or fighter aircraft), mount it on top of my vehicle, and drive it around town with impunity.

If a few million of us did that (as the Constitution without which you would have no legitimate power whatsoever GUARANTEES us we can), how well do you think the BATF and the FBI would fare the next time they decided to burn to death scores of innocent Christian women and children seeking shelter in a church, like they did at Waco, Texas, in the spring of 1993 — earning promotions, awards, and the fulsome, snickering praise of the ghoul Charles Schumer?

Does the lady believe Oklahomans should need a “state permit” to go to church? To write a letter to the editor? To attend a political meeting? Why is it only this ONE PLANK of the 10-plank Bill of Rights that she thinks she’s free to break her oath of office and infringe, infringe, infringe? What do all these corrupt, lying, prancing politicians have in mind for us, once we’re finally, completely disarmed?


Meantime, on another subject . . . Who Knew? It turns out Richard Nixon didn’t need to resign the Presidency in disgrace, after all.

If only he’d known about the James Clapper Defense!

After months and months of denying he had any direct role in illegal spying on the campaign of Democratic opponent George McGovern (as former Obama Director of National Intelligence Clapper insisted for more than a year there was no FBI spying on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump), it turns out all Nixon had to do was turn around at the last minute and say: “Of course we sent a bunch of Cuban ex-CIA agents to burglarize Democratic campaign headquarters at the Watergate! It was the right thing to do! It’s standard operating procedure. In fact, George McGovern should THANK us! Those men only broke in to Democratic campaign headquarters that night to . . . (wait for it) . . . protect George McGovern from the Russians!”

And the Nonpartisan Mainstream Media would, of course, have lapped it up, agreeing “Of course! So simple, now that it’s all been explained to us! And any of you who are criticizing President Nixon’s actions must be AGAINST OUR WONDERFUL CIA!”

In fact, after serving out his full two terms, Dick Nixon could then have landed a comfy. six-figure retirement job as an “analyst and commentator” on some television network, like today’s CNN.

Vin Suprynowicz was for 20 years an award-winning columnist and editorial writer for the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal. He blogs at .

Herschel: So What’s The Real Problem With Immigration?

Western Rifle Shooters Association

Start here.

Then go here for more info, including an explanation of the Soviet “liberation theology” bacillus injected throughout Latin America as an adjunct to the Cold War.

I would add the following:

1) People and cultures are different; if you want a Latino culture, unlimited illegal immigration will get you one.

2) You cannot expect people whose first act is to violate the laws of their new country to become law-abiding citizens.

3) If you imprison the white-guy employers of illegals, you will ratchet down (but not crush) demand for illegals as employees. As Herschel points out, no one is willing to do that.

4) When you have illegals voting, you have lost control of both your elections and your country.

View original post