2 Intriguing Points About Durham’s Allegations

2 Intriguing Points About Durham’s Allegations

Two intriguing points about the Durham allegations

By: Andrea Widburg

There are few people who have followed the Russia collusion hoax as closely as Dan Bongino. That’s why I made sure to listen to his podcast the Monday after the story broke regarding John Durham’s allegations about the Hillary campaign spying on Trump Tower, Trump’s apartment, and the White House. Sure enough, Bongino had a couple of interesting points to make. Also, I’ll share with you my predictions about what’s going to happen on the Hillary side of things.

When I wrote about the Durham motion to investigate potential conflicts of interest between Michael Sussmann and his attorney, the law firm of Latham & Watkins, I focused on the core point, which was that Hillary’s campaign, acting through the Perkins Coie law firm, spied on Trump. Bongino, though, had a few more subtle points to make. You can watch his video here, of course, but here are the two main takeaways:

First, I missed something very important in Durham’s motion. Here’s what Durham wrote at paragraph 5: “The Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (DNS) Internet traffic pertaining to …”

What Bongino caught is that Durham wrote “among the Internet data … was domain name system … Internet traffic.” That strongly implies that DNS information, which simply means sites accessed, isn’t the only information involved. It’s possible that Durham can show that there rae other internet data that the Hillary camp exploited, things such as emails or shared documents.

Second, Bongino thinks the real bombshell in this is that Durham is warning Sussmann that Latham & Watkins is a very dangerous law firm to have representing him. The reason is that one of the top Latham & Watkins attorneys is a gal named Kathryn Ruemmler or, as Bongino calls her, “The Fixer.” He points out that Ruemmler has her finger in every single corrupt pie baked during the Obama administration.

Kathryn Ruemmler hugging Obama following a Supreme Court victory (Public Domain)

Before moving to Latham & Watkins, Ruemmler was Obama’s White House counsel and ran interference for him. But before that, she worked on the Enron case with Andrew Weissmann, the man who really ran the Mueller “investigation.”

After leaving the White House, Ruemmler represented George Nader, a convicted pedophile who set up meetings between Trump people and representatives of the United Arab Emirates. He eventually pleaded guilty to having helped the UAE put millions of dollars illegally into Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign. Ruemmler also represented Susan Rice. Rice was the one who sent a memo to self on her last day in the White House assuring posterity that, when the Obama administration was spying on people, it was doing everything “by the book.”

Bongino believes that both Obama and, probably, Biden knew about the spying. Ruemmler’s job, as always, will be to keep Obama clean. As a power partner at Latham & Watkins, she can be expected to force the “Sacrifice of Sussmann,” if need be.

Here are are a few more Latham & Watkins tidbits that Bongino didn’t mention. Someone else who’s a partner there is Liz Cheney’s husband. That same linked article points out that Latham & Watkins gets a lot of business from “Chinese entities and countries whose human rights abuses and authoritarian rule have troubled the U.S. for years[.]” The article details the Chinese companies, along with their connections to the CCP and the corrupt countries the firm represents. Cheney’s husband, if he is only an average partner at Latham & Watkins, brings home $4.5 million annually for his work.

Finally, what about Hillary? This Daily Mail article says the press is starting to ask her questions about spying on Trump, but she’s not answering. When last we heard from Hillary, she was making noises about running again in 2024, a surprisingly reasonable thing to do, considering that no one wants Biden or Kamala or, although he wishes it were otherwise, Pete Buttigieg.

However, with the Durham revelations, my guess is that the Democrats will offer Hillary up as a sacrificial lamb for the party. She’ll be asked to take responsibility with the promise that she’ll get no prison time. Instead, she’ll just retire from the public eye, having taken one for the party and protected both the Sainted Barack Obama and the current White House occupant.

The problem with this theory is that it’s hard to see Hillary going down quietly. There’s a meme circulating that quotes Hillary saying that if she goes down, she’ll take everyone else down with her. In fact, she never said that, but it’s just the kind of thing she’d do.

What I’m reminded of when I look at the potential fight between Hillary and Obama over culpability is the divorce of a power couple I knew. They were very, very rich, and if they’d cut the marital estate in half, each of them would still have been very, very rich. However, by the time of the divorce, they hated each other. Therefore, each was willing to risk having exposed horrible secrets about him- or herself if it meant he or she could publicize horrible secrets about the other. You can read about the divorce here.

Incidentally, I see the same possibility that mutually assured destruction will fail in Chris Cuomo’s $60-million suit against CNN (which really means against Jeff Zucker). They should keep silent because each has filthy dirty laundry, but the urge to destroy the other may override self-preservation.

••••

This article (Two intriguing points about the Durham allegations) is republished here on TLB under “Fair Use” (see the TLB disclaimer below article) with attribution to the articles author Andrea Widburg and americanthinker.com.

TLB recommends that you visit the American Thinker for more great articles and info.

••••

Read More Durham Probe Related Articles

••••

Read more articles by Andrea Widburg

••••

Click on the image below to visit & join site:

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

The Surveillance and Political Spying Operations Highlighted by John Durham are the Tip of the Iceberg

The Surveillance and Political Spying Operations Highlighted by John Durham are the Tip of the Iceberg

Against the latest court filings by John Durham, highlighting the tip of the political surveillance iceberg, I have been asked to re-post the deep dive into the totality of the scale of the iceberg.  I will add some of the latest information into the outline to show how it all connects.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; instead, what they did was take the preexisting system and retool it, so the weapons only targeted one side of the political continuum.

Together they recalibrated the domestic surveillance capabilities, the internal spying systems, so that only their political opposition would be targeted. This point is where many people understandably get confused.

In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats.  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.

What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their ideological opposition became the target of the new national security system.  This is a very important nuance to understand as you dig deeper into this research outline.

Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01.  DHS came along in 2002 and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed.  When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.

The preexisting Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Dept of Justice (DOJ) were then repurposed to become two of the four pillars of the domestic national security apparatus.  However, this new construct would have a targeting mechanism based on political ideology.  The DHS, ODNI, DOJ and FBI became the four pillars of this new institution.  Atop these pillars is where you will find the Fourth Branch of Government.

We were not sleeping when this happened, we were wide awake.  However, we were stunningly distracted by the economic collapse that was taking place in 2006 and 2007 when the engineers behind Obama started to assemble the design.  By the time Obama took office in 2009, we sensed something profound was shifting, but we can only see exactly what shifted in the aftermath.  The four pillars were put into place, and a new Fourth Branch of Government was quietly created.

As time passed, and the system operators became familiar with their new tools, technology allowed the tentacles of the system to reach out and touch us. That is when we first started to notice that something very disconcerting was happening.  Those four pillars are the root of it, and if we take the time to understand how the Fourth Branch originated, questions about this current state of perpetual angst will start to make sense.

Grab a cup of your favorite beverage and take a walk with me as we outline how this was put together.  You might find many of the questions about our current state of political affairs beginning to make a lot more sense.

Remember, it is not my intent to outline the entire history of how we got to this place where the intelligence community now acts as the superseding fourth branch of government. Such an effort would be exhausting and likely take our discussion away from understanding the current dynamic.

History provided enough warnings from Dwight D. Eisenhower (military) to John F. Kennedy (CIA), to Richard Nixon (FBI), to all modern versions of warnings and frustrations from HPSCI Devin Nunes and ODNI Ric Grenell. None of those prior reference points are invalid, and all documented outlines of historic reference are likely true and accurate. However, a generational review is not useful, as the reference impacting us ‘right now‘ gets lost.

Instead, we pick up the expansive and weaponized intelligence system as it manifests after 9/11/01, and my goal is to highlight how the modern version of the total intelligence apparatus has now metastasized into a Fourth Branch of Government. It is this superseding branch that now touches and influences every facet of our life.

If we take the modern construct, originating at the speed of technological change, we can also see how the oversight or “check/balance” in our system of government became functionally obsolescent.

After many years of granular research about the intelligence apparatus inside our government, in the summer of 2020 I visited Washington DC to ask specific questions. My goal was to go where the influence agents within government actually operate, and to discover the people deep inside the institutions no one elected, and few people pay attention to.

It was during this process when I discovered how information is purposefully put into containment silos; essentially a formal process to block the flow of information between agencies and between the original branches. While frustrating to discover, the silo effect was important because understanding the communication between networks leads to our ability to reconcile conflict between what we perceive and what’s actually taking place.

After days of research and meetings in DC during 2020; amid a town that was serendipitously shut down due to COVID-19; I found a letter slid under the door of my room in a nearly empty hotel with an introduction of sorts. The subsequent discussions were perhaps the most important. After many hours of specific questions and answers on specific examples, I realized why our nation is in this mess. That is when I discovered the fourth and superseding branch of government, the Intelligence Branch.

I am going to explain how the Intelligence Branch works: (1) to control every other branch of government; (2) how it functions as an entirely independent branch of government with no oversight; (3) how and why it was created to be independent from oversight; (4) what is the current mission of the IC Branch, and most importantly (5) who operates it.

The Intelligence Branch is an independent functioning branch of government, it is no longer a subsidiary set of agencies within the Executive Branch as most would think. To understand the Intelligence Branch, we need to drop the elementary school civics class lessons about three coequal branches of government and replace that outlook with the modern system that created itself.

The Intelligence Branch functions much like the State Dept, through a unique set of public-private partnerships that support it. Big Tech industry collaboration with intelligence operatives is part of that functioning, almost like an NGO. However, the process is much more important than most think. In this problematic perspective of a corrupt system of government, the process is the flaw – not the outcome.

There are people making decisions inside this little known, unregulated and out-of-control branch of government that impact every facet of our lives.

None of the people operating deep inside the Intelligence Branch were elected; and our elected representative House members genuinely do not know how the system works. I assert this position affirmatively because I have talked to House and Senate staffers, including the chiefs of staff for multiple House & Senate committee seats. They are not malicious people; however, they are genuinely clueless of things that happen outside their silo. That is part of the purpose of me explaining it, with examples, in full detail with sunlight.

We begin….

In April of 2016, the FBI launched a counterintelligence operation against presidential candidate Donald Trump. The questioning about that operation is what New York Representative Elise Stefanik cites in March of 2017, approximately 11 months later (First Two Minutes).

[embedded content]

Things to note:

♦ Notice how FBI Director James Comey just matter-of-factly explains no one outside the DOJ was informed about the FBI operation. Why? Because that’s just the way things are done. His justification for unilateral operations was “because of the sensitivity of the matter“, totally ignoring any constitutional or regulatory framework for oversight; because, well, quite simply, there isn’t any. The intelligence apparatus inside the DOJ/FBI can, and does, operate based on their own independent determinations of authority.

♦ Notice also how FBI Director Comey shares his perspective that informing the National Security Council (NSC) is the equivalent of notifying the White House. The FBI leadership expressly believe they bear no responsibility to brief the Chief Executive. As long as they tell some unknown, unelected, bureaucratic entity inside the NSC, their unwritten responsibility to inform the top of their institutional silo is complete. If the IC wants to carve out the Oval Office, they simply plant information inside the NSC and, from their perspective, their civic responsibility to follow checks-and-balances is complete. This is an intentional construct.

♦ Notice how Comey obfuscates notification to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), by avoiding the fact James Clapper was the DNI from outset of the counterintelligence operation throughout the remainder of Obama’s term. When I get deeper into the process, we will understand how the Intelligence Branch has intentionally used the creation of the DNI position (established post 9/11/01) as a method to avoid oversight, not enhance it. Keeping an oblivious doofus like James Clapper in position held strategic value [Doofus Reminder HERE].

That video of James Comey being questioned by Elise Stefanik was the first example given to me by someone who knew the background of everything that was taking place preceding that March 20, 2017, hearing. That FBI reference point is a key to understand how the Intelligence Branch operates with unilateral authority above Congress (legislative branch), above the White House (executive branch), and even above the court system (judicial branch).

Also, watch this short video of James Clapper because it is likely many readers have forgotten, and likely even more readers have never seen it.  Watch closely how then White House national security adviser John Brennan is responding in that video.  This is before Brennan became CIA Director, this is when Brennan was helping Barack Obama put the pillars into place.  WATCH:

[embedded content]

[Sidebar: Every time I post this video it gets scrubbed from YouTube (example), so save it if you ever want to see it again.]

The video of James Clapper highlights how the ODNI position (created with good national security intention) ended up becoming the fulcrum for modern weaponization and is now an office manipulated by agencies with a vested interest in retaining power. The Intelligence Branch holds power over the ODNI through their influence and partnership with the body that authorizes the power within it, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).

Factually, the modern intelligence apparatus uses checks and balances in their favor. The checks create silos of proprietary information, classified information, vaults of information that work around oversight issues. The silos are part of the problem.

Ironically, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was created in the aftermath of 9/11/01 expressly to eliminate the silos of information which they felt led to a domestic terrorist attack that could have been prevented. The ODNI was created specifically upon the recommendation of the 9/11 commission.

The intent was to create a central hub of intelligence information, inside the Executive Branch, where the CIA, NSA, DoD, DoS, and DIA could deposit their unique intelligence products and a repository would be created so that domestic intelligence operations, like the DOJ and FBI could access them when needed to analyze threats to the U.S.  This, they hoped, would ensure the obvious flags missed in the 9/11 attacks would not be missed again.

KEY POINT – Prior to the creation of the ODNI, the terror threats were generally considered ‘external‘ threats that would target us.  The intelligence products were threat assessments of entities outside the United States, and how they may present a risk to us in America.  However, with the creation of the ODNI the terror threat analysis now looked ‘internally‘.  This is so very critical an inflection point it must be emphasized.

Prior to the ODNI the intelligence products from the CIA, NSA, DoD, DoS, DIA, were used to protect us (American citizens) from them (foreign actors). After the ODNI was created those same intelligence products were used to look inward, into U.S. citizens, and as an outcome the tools were used to conduct domestic surveillance of threats to government from ‘inside’ actors.  They were protecting government from us.

The terror surveillance radar was no longer pointed offshore.  After 9/11 the terror surveillance radar was modified to point inland.

Prior to the ODNI, We The People were what the intelligence system was designed to protect.  After the ODNI was created, We The People were now defined as the potential threat.  The continuity of government was now what needed to be protected…. FROM US!

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), or Director of National Intelligence (DNI), became the arbiter of information created by institutions that were not previously, constitutionally, allowed to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens.  The NSA data, and all other previously contained tools for terror threat hunting, was now being used by the Dept of Justice and the FBI to look inwardly.

With the constitutional limits around the use of intelligence agencies by the DOJ and FBI now blurred by the elimination of firewalls, the DNI office created a problem.  Think of the ODNI as the narrow part of the hourglass.   If the DOJ and FBI want to get into the CIA, NSA, DoD, DIA intelligence products they must pass through the ODNI.  You’ll see how it was critical to install a person uniquely skilled in being an idiot, James Clapper, into that willfully blind role while intelligence operatives worked around the office to assemble the Intelligence Branch of Government.

Think about what happened at the DOJ and FBI after the ODNI was created.  The DOJ began a special unit, the National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) to look secretly at the intelligence material that was previously off-limits for domestic surveillance and targeting.  The FBI began counterintelligence operation against American citizens using access to that same intelligence material.

It was only a matter of time before the DOJ-NSD and FBI started to abuse their access to electronic data that was collected exclusively to detect threats from foreign actors.  This is where the FISA Court abuses of illegal surveillance of American citizens starts to become exponential.

The DOJ/FBI illegal use of the NSA database is quantified within their own admissions to the FISA Court. Example below shows 85% of all search queries into the database are non-compliant:

♦ The last federal budget that flowed through the traditional budgetary process was signed into law in September of 2007 for fiscal year 2008 by George W. Bush. Every budget since then has been a fragmented process of continuing resolutions and individual spending bills.

Why does this matter? Because many people think defunding the Intelligence Community is a solution; it is not…. at least, not yet. Worse yet, the corrupt divisions deep inside the U.S. intelligence system can now fund themselves from multinational private sector partnerships (banks, corporations and foreign entities).

• When Democrats took over the House of Representatives in January 2007, they took office with a plan. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, and Democrats controlled the Senate where Harry Reid was Majority Leader. Barack Obama was a junior senator from Illinois.

Pelosi and Reid intentionally did not advance a budget in 2008 (for fiscal year 2009) because their plan included installing Barack Obama (and all that came with him) with an open checkbook made even more lucrative by a worsening financial crisis and a process called baseline budgeting. Baseline budgeting means the prior fiscal year budget is accepted as the starting point for the next year budget. All previous expenditures are baked into the cake within baseline budgeting.

Massive bailouts preceded Obama’s installation due to U.S. economic collapse, and massive bailouts continued after his installation. This is the ‘never let a crisis go to waste’ aspect. TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program), auto bailouts (GM), and the massive stimulus spending bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, ie. those shovel ready jobs) were all part of the non budget spending. The federal reserve assisted with Quantitative Easing (QE1 and QE2) as congress passed various Porkulous spending bills further spending and replacing the formal budget process.

Note: There has never been a budget passed in the normal/traditional process since September of 2007.

• While Obama’s radical ‘transformation‘ was triggered across a broad range of government institutions, simultaneously spending on the U.S. military was cut, but spending on the intelligence apparatus expanded. We were all distracted by Obamacare, and the Republican party wanted to keep us that way. However, in the background there was a process of transformation taking place that included very specific action by Eric Holder and targeted effort toward the newest executive agency the ODNI.

The people behind Obama, those same people now behind Joe Biden, knew from years of strategic planning that ‘radical transformation’ would require control over specific elements inside the U.S. government. Eric Holder played a key role in his position as U.S. Attorney General in the DOJ.

AG Holder recruited ideologically aligned political operatives who were aware of the larger institutional objectives.

One of those objectives was weaponizing the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) a division inside the DOJ that had no inspector general oversight. For most people the DOJ-NSD weaponization surfaced with a hindsight awakening of the DOJ-NSD targeting candidate Donald Trump many years later. However, by then the Holder crew had executed almost eight full years of background work.

• The second larger Obama/Holder objective was control over the FBI. Why was that important? Because the FBI does the domestic investigative work on anyone who needs or holds a security clearance. The removal of security clearances could be used as a filter to further build the internal ideological army they were assembling. Additionally, with new power in the ODNI created as a downstream consequence of the Patriot Act, new protocols for U.S. security clearances were easy to justify.

Carefully selecting fellow ideological travelers was facilitated by this filtration within the security clearance process. How does that issue later manifest?   Just look around at how politicized every intelligence agency has become, specifically including the FBI.

• At the exact same time this new background security clearance process was ongoing, again everyone distracted by the fight over Obamacare, inside the Department of State (Secretary Hillary Clinton) a political alignment making room for the next phase was being assembled. Names like Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton were familiar on television while Lisa Monaco worked as a legal liaison between the Obama White House and Clinton State Department.

Through the Dept of State (DoS) the intelligence apparatus began working on their first steps to align Big Tech with a larger domestic institutional objective. Those of you who remember the “Arab Spring”, some say “Islamist Spring”, will remember it was triggered by Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo – his first foreign trip. The State Department worked with grassroots organizers (mostly Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Qatar and Libya. Obama leaned heavily on the organizational network of Turkish President Recep Erdogan for contacts and support.

Why does this aspect matter to us? Well, you might remember how much effort the Obama administration put into recruiting Facebook and Twitter as resources for the various mideast rebellions the White House and DoS supported. This was the point of modern merge between the U.S. intelligence community and Big Tech social media.

In many ways, the coordinated political outcomes in Libya and Egypt were the beta test for the coordinated domestic political outcomes we saw in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The U.S. intelligence community working with social media platforms and political operatives.

Overlaying all of that background activity was also a new alignment of the Obama-era intelligence apparatus with ideological federal “contractors“. Where does this contractor activity manifest? In the FISA Court opinion of Rosemary Collyer who cited the “interagency memorandum of understanding”, or MOU.

Hopefully, you can see a small part of how tentacled the system to organize/weaponize the intelligence apparatus was. None of this was accidental, all of this was by design, and the United States Senate was responsible for intentionally allowing most of this to take place.

That’s the 30,000/ft level backdrop history of what was happening as the modern IC was created. Next, we will go into how all these various intelligence networks began working in unison and how they currently control all of the other DC institutions under them; including how they can carve out the President from knowing their activity.

♦ When Barack Obama was installed in January 2009, the Democrats held a 60-seat majority in the U.S. Senate. As the people behind the Obama installation began executing their longer-term plan, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was a tool to create the Intelligence Branch; it was not an unintentional series of events.

When Obama was installed, Dianne Feinstein was the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), and Democrat operative Dan Jones was her lead staffer. Feinstein was completely controlled by those around her including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The CIA was in the process of turning over personnel following the Bush era, and as a result of a massive multi-year narrative of diminished credibility (Iraq WMD), a deep purge was underway. Obama/Holder were in the process of shifting intelligence alignment and the intensely political Democrat Leader Harry Reid was a key participant.

THE TRAP – Many people say that Congress is the solution to eliminating the Fourth and superseding Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. This is an exercise in futility because the Legislative Branch, specifically the SSCI, facilitated the creation of the Intelligence Branch. The SSCI cannot put the genie they created back in the bottle without admitting they too are corrupt; and the background story of their corruption is way too intense to be exposed now.

Every member of the SSCI is compromised in some controlling manner. Those Senators who disliked the control over them; specifically disliked because the risk of sunlight was tenuous and, well, possible; have either left completely or stepped down from the committee. None of the SSCI members past or present would ever contemplate saying openly what their tenure involved.

[Note: You might remember when Vice Chairman Mark Warner’s text messages surfaced, there was a controlled Republican SSCI member who came to his defense in February of 2018. It was not accidental that exact Senator later became the chair of the SSCI himself. That Republican Senator is Marco Rubio, now vice-chair since the Senate re-flipped back to the optics of Democrat control in 2021.]

All of President Obama’s 2009 intelligence appointments required confirmation from the Senate. The nominees had to first pass through the Democrat controlled SSCI, and then to a full Senate vote where Democrats held a 60-vote majority. Essentially, Obama got everyone he wanted in place easily. Rahm Emmanuel was Obama’s Chief of Staff, and Valerie Jarrett was Senior Advisor.

Tim Geithner was Treasury Secretary in 2010 when the joint DOJ/FBI and IRS operation to target the Tea Party took place after the midterm “shellacking” caused by the Obamacare backlash.

Mitch McConnell was Minority Leader in the Senate but supported the targeting of the Tea Party as his Senate colleagues were getting primaried by an angry and effective grassroots campaign. McConnell’s friend, Senator Bob Bennett, getting beaten in Utah was the final straw.

Dirty Harry and Mitch McConnell saw the TEA Party through the same prism. The TEA Party took Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts (Scott Brown); Sharon Angle was about to take out Harry Reid in Nevada; Arlen Spector was taken down in Pennsylvania; Senator Robert Byrd died; Senator Lisa Murkowski lost her primary to Joe Miller in Alaska; McConnell’s nominee Mike Castle lost to Christine O’Donnell in Delaware; Rand Paul won in Kentucky. This is the background. The peasants were revolting…. and visibly angry Mitch McConnell desperately made a deal with the devil to protect himself.

In many ways, the TEA Party movement was/is very similar to the MAGA movement. The difference in 2010 was the absence of a head of the movement, in 2015 Donald Trump became that head figure who benefited from the TEA Party energy. Trump came into office in 2017 with the same congressional opposition as the successful TEA Party candidates in 2011.

Republicans took control of the Senate following the 2014 mid-terms. Republicans took control of the SSCI in January 2015. Senator Richard Burr became chairman of the SSCI, and Dianne Feinstein shifted to Vice-Chair. Dirty Harry Reid left the Senate, and Mitch McConnell took power again.

Republicans were in control of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2015 when the Intelligence Branch operation against candidate Donald Trump was underway. [Feinstein’s staffer, Dan Jones, left the SSCI so he could act as a liaison and political operative between private-sector efforts (Fusion GPS, Chris Steele) and the SSCI.] The SSCI was a participant in that Fusion-GPS/Chris Steele operation, and as a direct consequence Republicans were inherently tied to the problem with President Trump taking office in January of 2017. Indiana Republican Senator Dan Coats was a member of the SSCI.

Bottom line…. When it came to the intelligence system targeting Donald Trump during the 2015/2016 primary, the GOP was just as much at risk as their Democrat counterparts.

When Trump unexpectedly won the 2016 election, the SSCI was shocked more than most. They knew countermeasures would need to be deployed to protect themselves from any exposure of their intelligence conduct. Dianne Feinstein stepped down, and Senator Mark Warner was elevated to Vice Chairman.

Indiana’s own Mike Pence, now Vice President, recommended fellow Hoosier, SSCI Senator Dan Coats, to become President Trump’s Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). [Apply hindsight here]

• To give an idea of the Intelligence Branch power dynamic, remind yourself how House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), Chairman Devin Nunes, tried to get access to the DOJ/FBI records of the FISA application used against the Trump campaign via Carter Page.

Remember, Devin Nunes only saw a portion of the FISA trail from his review of a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) previously given to President Obama. Chairman Nunes had to review the PDB at the White House SCIF due to compartmented intelligence, another example of the silo benefit.

Remember the massive stonewalling and blocking of the DOJ/FBI toward Nunes? Remember the back and forth battle over declassification surrounding the Nunes memo?

Remember, after Nunes went directly to House Speaker Paul Ryan for help (didn’t get any), the DOJ only permitted two members from each party within the HPSCI to review the documents, and only at the DOJ offices of main justice?

Contrast that amount of House Intel Committee railroading and blocking by intelligence operatives in the DOJ, DOJ-NSD and FBI, with the simple request by Senate Intelligence Vice Chairman Mark Warner asking to see the Carter Page FISA application and immediately a copy being delivered to him on March 17th, 2017.

Can you see which intelligence committee is aligned with the deepest part of the deep state?

Oh, how quickly we forget:

The contrast of ideological alignment between the House, Senate and Intelligence Branch is crystal clear when viewed through the prism of cooperation. You can see which legislative committee holds the power and support of the Intelligence Branch. The Senate Intel Committee facilitates the corrupt existence of the IC Branch, so the IC Branch only cooperates with the Senate Intel Committee. It really is that simple.

• The Intelligence Branch carefully selects its own members by controlling how security clearances are investigated and allowed (FBI). The Intelligence Branch also uses compartmentalization of intelligence as a way to keep each agency, and each downstream branch of government (executive, legislative and judicial), at arm’s length as a method to stop anyone from seeing the larger picture of their activity. I call this the “silo effect“, and it is done by design.

I have looked at stunned faces when I presented declassified silo product from one agency to the silo customers of another. You would be astonished at what they don’t know because it is not in their ‘silo’.

Through the advice and consent rules, the Intelligence Branch uses the SSCI to keep out people they consider dangerous to their ongoing operations.

Any appointee to the intelligence community must first pass through the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, before they get a full Senate vote. If the SSCI rejects the candidate, they simply refuse to take up the nomination. The president is then blocked from that appointment.

This is what happened with President Trump over-and-over again.

• Additionally, the Intelligence Branch protects itself, and its facilitating allies through the formal classification process. The Intelligence Branch gets to decide unilaterally what information will be released and what information will be kept secret.

There is no entity outside the Intelligence Branch, and yes that includes the President of the United States, who can supersede the classification authority of the Intelligence Branch. {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} This is something 99.9% of the people on our side get totally and frustratingly wrong.

No one can declassify, or make public, anything the Intelligence Branch will not agree to. Doubt this?  Ask Ric Grenell, John Ratcliffe, or even President Trump himself.

• The classification process is determined inside the Intelligence Branch, all by themselves. They get to choose what rank of classification exists on any work-product they create; and they get to decide what the classification status is of any work product that is created by anyone else. The Intelligence Branch has full control over what is considered classified information and what is not. The Intelligence Branch defines what is a “national security interest” and what is not. A great technique for hiding fingerprints of corrupt and illegal activity.

[For familiar reference see the redactions to Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages. The Intelligence Branch does all redactions.]

• Similarly, the declassification process is a request by an agency, even a traditionally superior agency like the President of the United States, to the Intelligence Branch asking for them to release the information. The Intelligence Branch again holds full unilateral control. If the head of the CIA refuses to comply with the declassification instruction of the President, what can the president do except fire him/her? {Again, GO DEEP} How does the President replace the non-compliant cabinet member?  They have to go through the SSCI confirmation.  See the problem?

Yes, there are ways to break up the Intelligence Branch, but they do not start with any congressional effort. As you can see above, the process is the flaw – not the solution. Most conservative pundits have their emphasis on the wrong syllable. Their cornerstone is false.

For their own self-preservation, the Intelligence Branch has been interfering in our elections for years. The way to tear this apart begins with STATE LEVEL election reform that blocks the Legislative Branch from coordinating with the Intelligence Branch.

The extreme federalism approach is critical and also explains why Joe Biden has instructed Attorney General Merrick Garland to use the full power of the DOJ to stop state level election reform efforts. The worry of successful state level election control is also why the Intelligence Branch now needs to support the federal takeover of elections.

Our elections have been usurped by the Intelligence Branch. Start with honest elections and we will see just how much Democrat AND Republican corruption is dependent on manipulated election results. Start at the state level. Start there…. everything else is downstream.

♦ People want examples, reference points for work the Intelligence Branch conducts, specifically how it protects itself.

Here is an example: Julian Assange.

Yes, the history of the U.S. national security apparatus goes back decades; however, the weaponization of that apparatus, the creation of an apex branch of government, the Intelligence Branch, originated –as we currently feel it– under President Barack Obama.

Obama took the foundational tools created by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and used the intelligence system architecture to create a weapon for use in his fundamental transformation. An alliance of ideologues within government (intel community) and the private sector (big tech and finance) was assembled, and the largest government weapon was created. Think about this every time you take your shoes off at an airport.

After the weapon was assembled and tested (Arab Spring), the Legislative Branch was enjoined under the auspices of a common enemy, Donald J. Trump, an outsider who was a risk to every entity in the institutional construct of Washington DC. Trillions were at stake, and years of affluence and influence were at risk as the unholy alliance was put together.

To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to U.S. Intelligence Branch interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the FBI/CIA were in 2016.

It is within the network of foreign and domestic intel operations where Intelligence Branch political tool, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, was working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI counterintelligence operations.

By now, people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor generally identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the FBI/CIA to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}

In a similar fashion, the FBI tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor, Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.

The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.

HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes outlined how very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. The FBI also fabricated information in the FISA.

However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints of the international intelligence apparatus; only this time, due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S., the CIA aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies was important.

Remember, it’s clear in the text messages Strzok had a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA. Additionally, former CIA Director John Brennan has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative; and Peter Strzok wrote the July 31st, 2016, “Electronic Communication” that originated FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane.” Strzok immediately used that EC to travel to London to debrief allied intelligence officials connected to the Australian Ambassador to the U.K, Alexander Downer.

In short, Peter Strzok acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for the Intelligence Branch and CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.

Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015; at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons, the 2015 GOP candidates for President.

It was also Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskaya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S.

Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan died in a helicopter crash.

Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s private sector handler [NOTE: remember, the public-private sector partnership], it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Patrick Byrne the instructions on where to send Butina. {Go Deep}

All of this context outlines the extent to which the FBI/CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that eventually settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit. The international operations of the Intelligence Branch were directed by the FBI/CIA; and the domestic operations were coordinated by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

Recap:Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Halper tasked against Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Azra Turk, pretending to be a Halper asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI). ♦Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr (CIA, Fusion-GPS). ♦Butina tasked against Donald Trump Jr (FBI). All of these activities were coordinated.

Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. However, Deripaska refused to participate.

All of this foreign and domestic engagement was directly controlled by collaborating U.S. intelligence agencies from inside the Intelligence Branch. And all of this coordinated activity was intended to give a specific Russia influence/interference impression.

♦ The key point of all that background context is to see how committed the Intelligence Branch was to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ and DOJ-NSD, put a hell of a lot of work into it.

We also know that John Durham looked at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talked to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important because it ties into the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

(Link to pdf)

On Tuesday April 15th more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, and it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.

Why the delay?

What was the DOJ waiting for?

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after Congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

Knowing how much effort the Intelligence Branch put into the false Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange, monitor all activity, and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

Within three months of the EDVA grand jury, the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018.

The DOJ sat on the indictment while the Mueller/Weissmann probe was ongoing.

KEY POINT: The predicate for everything in the Trump-Russia narrative was that Russia hacked the DNC servers. The Robert Mueller special counsel would not have existed except for the justification of the DNC hack by Russia as a predicate reason for the entire “Russian Interference in the 2016 Election” narrative.   The Trump-Russia narrative was the coverup tool for the surveillance and spying against Trump.

As soon as the Mueller/Weissmann probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).

As a person who has researched this fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.

It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange. The Weissmann/Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes for justification, and that narrative was contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

♦ This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.

The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC and FBI contractor.

The CIA holds a self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim; the FBI holds an interest in maintaining that claim; the U.S. media hold an interest in maintaining that claim. All of the foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.

This “Russian hacking” claim was ultimately important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus, it forms the corner of their justification. With that level of importance, well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Julian Assange down as soon as intelligence officials knew the Weissmann/Mueller report was going to be public.

…. and that’s exactly what they did. They threw a bag over Assange.

COLLAPSED OVERSIGHT – The modern system to ‘check’ the Executive Branch was the creation of the legislative “Gang of Eight,” a legislative oversight mechanism intended to provide a bridge of oversight between the authority of the intelligence community within the Executive Branch.

The Go8 construct was designed to allow the President authority to carry out intelligence operations and provide the most sensitive notifications to a select group within Congress.

The Go8 oversight is directed to the position, not the person, and consists of: (1) The Speaker of the House; (2) The Minority Leader of the House; (3) The Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, HPSCI; (4) The Ranking Member (minority) of the HPSCI; (5) The Leader of the Senate; (6) The Minority Leader of the Senate; (7) The Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, SSCI; and finally (8) the Vice-Chair of the SSCI.

Example: When the Chief Executive (the President) initiates an intelligence operation on behalf of the United States, the President triggers a “finding memo.” In essence, the instruction to the intel agency or agencies to authorize a covert operation. When that process takes place, the Go8 are the first people notified. Depending on the sensitivity of the operation, sometimes the G08 are notified immediately after the operation is conducted. The notification can be a phone call or an in-person briefing.

Because of the sensitivity of their intelligence information, the Gang of Eight hold security clearances that permit them to receive and review all intelligence operations. The intelligence community are also responsible for briefing the Go8 with the same information they use to brief the President.

~ 2021 Gang of Eight ~

The Go8 design is intended to put intelligence oversight upon both political parties in Congress; it is designed that way by informing the minority leaders of both the House and Senate as well as the ranking minority members of the SSCI and HPSCI. Under the concept, the President cannot conduct an intelligence operation; and the intelligence community cannot carry out intelligence gathering operations without the majority and minority parties knowing about it.

The modern design of this oversight system was done to keep rogue and/or corrupt intelligence operations from happening. However, as we shared in the preview to this entire discussion, the process was usurped during the Obama era. {GO DEEP}

Former FBI Director James Comey openly admitted to Congress on March 20, 2017, that the FBI, FBI Counterintelligence Division, DOJ and DOJ-National Security Division, together with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA, had been conducting independent investigations of Donald Trump for over a year without informing the Go8. Comey justified the lack of informing Go8 oversight by saying, “because of the sensitivity of the matter.”

Stupidly, Congress never pressed James Comey on that issue. The arrogance was astounding, and the acceptance by Congress was infuriating. However, that specific example highlighted just how politically corrupt the system had become. In essence, Team Obama usurped the entire design of congressional oversight…. and Congress just brushed it off.

Keep in mind, Comey did not say the White House was unaware; in fact he said exactly the opposite, he said, “The White House was informed through the National Security Council,” (the NSC). The very direct and specific implication; the unavoidable implication and James Comey admission that everyone just brushed aside, was that President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, was totally informed of the intelligence operation(s) against Donald Trump. After all, the NSC reports to the National Security Advisor.

That is why Susan Rice’s attorney could never allow her to appear before a congressional inquiry.

Look at that highlighted box from Susan Rice’s lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, and remember in his March 20, 2017, testimony Comey said, “The White House was informed through the National Security Council,” (the NSC).

FBI Director James Comey was protecting himself against the spygate surveillance of Trump, by leveraging his prior notification to the White House.  Comey was signaling, ‘you cant get me for spying on Trump without getting Susan Rice and Barack Obama’, who knew about it.

Does the January 20, 2017, Susan Rice memo look different now?

Again, no one saw the immediate issue. What Comey just described on that March day in 2017 was the total usurpation of the entire reason the Gang of Eight exists; to eliminate the potential for political weaponization of the Intelligence Community by the executive branch.

The Gang of Eight notifications to the majority and minority of the legislative branch are specifically designed to make sure what James Comey admitted to doing was never supposed to happen.

Team Obama carried out a political operation using outside contractors and the intelligence community, and the checks-and-balances in the system were intentionally usurped. This is an indisputable fact, and a point highlighted by John Durham’s court filing:

Worse still, the entire legislative branch of Congress, which specifically includes the Republicans that now controlled the House and Senate, did nothing. They just ignored what was admitted to them. The usurpation was willfully ignored.

The mechanism of the G08 was bypassed without a twitch of condemnation or investigation…. because the common enemy was Donald Trump.

This example highlights the collapse of the system. Obama, the executive branch, collapsed the system by usurping the process; in essence the process became the bigger issue, and the lack of immediate legislative branch reaction became evidence of open acceptance.

The outcomes of the usurpation played out over the next four years, Donald J. Trump was kneecapped and lost his presidency because of it. However, the bigger issue of the collapse still exists.

The downstream consequence of the Legislative Branch accepting the Executive Branch usurpation meant both intelligence committees were compromised. Additionally, the leadership of both the House and Senate were complicit. Think about this carefully. The Legislative Branch allowance of the intelligence usurpation meant the Legislative Branch was now subservient to the Intelligence Branch.

That’s where we are.

Right now.

That’s where we are.

Term-3 Obama is now back in the White House with Joe Biden.

Term-1 and Term-2 Obama usurped the ‘check and balance‘ within the system and weaponized the intelligence apparatus. During Trump’s term that weaponization was covered up by a compliant congress, and not a single member of the oversight called it out. Now, Term-3 Obama steps back in to continue the cover up and continue the weaponization.

Hopefully, you can now see the scale of the problem that surrounds us with specific citation for what has taken place. What I just explained to you above is not conspiracy theory, it is admitted fact that anyone can look upon. Yet….

Have you seen this mentioned anywhere?

Have you seen this called out by anyone in Congress?

Have you seen anyone in media (ally or adversary) call this out? Have you seen any member of the Judicial Branch stand up and say wait, what is taking place is not okay? Have you seen a single candidate for elected office point this out? Have you seen anyone advising a candidate to point this out?

This is our current status. It is not deniable. The truth exists regardless of our comfort.

Not a single person in power will say openly what has taken place. They are scared of the Fourth Branch. The evidence of what has taken place is right there in front of our face. The words, actions and activities of those who participated in this process are not deniable.

There are only two members of the Gang of Eight who have existed in place from January 2007 (the real beginning of Obama’s term, two years before he took office when the Congress flipped).

Only two members of the G08 have been consistently in place from January of 2007 to right now, today. All the others came and went, but two members of the Gang of Eight have been part of that failed and collapsed oversight throughout the past 15 years, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.

TECHNOLOGY – On a global scale – the modern intelligence gathering networks are now dependent on data collection to execute their intelligence missions. In the digital age nations have been executing various methods to gather that data. Digital surveillance has replaced other methods of interception. Those surveillance efforts have resulted in a coalescing of regional data networks based on historic multi-national relationships.

We have a recent frame of reference for the “U.S. data collection network” within the NSA. Through the allied process the Five Eyes nations all rely on the NSA surveillance database (U.K, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and U.S.) The NSA database provides the digital baseline for intelligence operations in defense of our allies. The portals into the NSA database are essentially an assembly of allies in like-minded ideological connection to the United States.

Unfortunately, there have been some revelations about the NSA database being used to monitor our allies, like in the example of Germany and surveillance on Angela Merkel’s phone. As long as “the good guys” are operating honorably, allies of the United States can feel confident about having protection from the NSA surveillance of global digital data. We warn our friends if we detect something dangerous etc.

The U.S. has nodes on communication pipelines to intercept and extract data. We have also launched hundreds, perhaps thousands, of satellites to conduct surveillance and gather up data. All of this data is fed into the NSA database where it is monitored (presumably) as a national security mechanism, and in defense of our allies.

However, what about data collection or data networks that are outside the NSA database? What do our enemies do? The NSA database is just one intelligence operation of digital surveillance amid the entire world, and we do not allow access by adversaries we are monitoring. So what do they do? What do our allies do who might not trust the United States due to past inconsistencies, ie. the Middle East?

The answers to those questions highlight other data collection networks. So a brief review of the major players is needed.

CHINA – China operates their own database. They, like the NSA, scoop up data for their system. Like us, China launches satellites and deploys other electronic data collection methods to download into their database. This is why the issues of electronic devices manufactured in China becomes problematic. Part of the Chinese data collection system involves the use of spyware, hacking and extraction.

Issues with Chinese communication company Huawei take on an added dimension when you consider the goal of the Chinese government to conduct surveillance and assemble a network of data to compete with the United States via the NSA. Other Chinese methods of surveillance and data-collection are less subversive, as in the examples of TicTok and WeChat. These are Chinese social media companies that are scraping data just like the NSA scrapes data from Facebook, Twitter and other Silicon Valley tech companies. [ Remember, the Intelligence Branch is a public-private partnership. ]

RUSSIA – It is very likely that Russia operates their own database. We know Russia launches satellites, just like China and the USA, for the same purposes. Russia is also very proficient at hacking into other databases and extracting information to store and utilize in their own network. The difference between the U.S., China and Russia is likely that Russia spends more time on the hacking aspect because they do not generate actual technology systems as rapidly as the U.S. and China.

The most recent database creation is an outcome of an ally having to take action because they cannot rely on the ideology of the United States remaining consistent, as the administrations ping-pong based on ideology.

SAUDI ARABIA – Yes, in 2016 we discovered that Saudi Arabia was now operating their own intelligence data-gathering operation. It would make sense, given the nature of the Middle East and the constant fluctuations in political support from the United States. It is a lesson the allied Arab community and Gulf Cooperation Council learned quickly when President Obama went to Cairo in 2009 and launched the Islamist Spring (Arab Spring) upon them.

I have no doubt the creation of the Saudi intelligence network was specifically because the Obama administration started supporting radical Islamists within the Muslim Brotherhood and threw fuel on the fires of extremism all over the Arab world.

Think about it., What would you do if you were Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, Jordan, Oman or Yemen and you knew the United States could just trigger an internal uprising of al-Qaeda, ISIS and the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood to seek your destruction?

Without a doubt, those urgent lessons from 2009, 2010, 2011 triggered the formation of the Arab Intelligence Network as a network to defend itself with consistency. They assembled the network and activated it in 2017 as pictured above.

Israel – Along a similar outlook to the Arab network, no doubt Israel operates an independent data collection system as a method of protecting itself from ever-changing U.S. politics amid a region that is extremely hostile to its very existence. Like the others, Israel launches proprietary satellites, and we can be sure they use covert methods to gather electronic data just like the U.S. and China.

As we have recently seen in the Pegasus story, Israel creates spyware programs that are able to track and monitor cell phone communications of targets. The spyware would not work unless Israel had access to some network where the phone meta-data was actually stored. So yeah, it makes sense for Israel to operate an independent intelligence database.

♦ Summary: As we understand the United States Intelligence Branch of government as the superseding entity that controls the internal politics of our nation, we also must consider that multiple nations have the same issue. There are major intelligence networks around the world beside the NSA “Five-Eyes” database. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Israel all operate proprietary databases deploying the same tools and techniques for assembly.

The geopolitical conflict that has always existed has now shifted into a digital battlespace. The Intelligence Agencies from these regions are now operating as the backbone of the government that uses them and has become dependent on them. [<- Reread that].

Once you accept the digital-era intelligence apparatus of China, Russia, Saudi-Arabia, The United States and Israel, are now the primary national security mechanisms for stabilization of government; then you accept the importance of those intelligence operations.

Once you understand how foundational those modern intelligence operations have become for the stability and continuity of those governments…… then you begin to understand just how the United States intelligence community became more important than the government that created it.

Public Private Partnership – The modern Fourth Branch of Government is only possible because of a Public-Private partnership with the intelligence apparatus. You do not have to take my word for it, the partnership is so brazened they have made public admissions.

The biggest names in Big Tech announced in June their partnership with the Five Eyes intelligence network, ultimately controlled by the NSA, to: (1) monitor all activity in their platforms; (2) identify extremist content; (3) look for expressions of Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE); and then, (4) put the content details into a database where the Five Eyes intelligence agencies (U.K., U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand) can access it.

Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft are all partnering with the intelligence apparatus. It might be difficult to fathom how openly they admit this, but they do. Look at this sentence in the press release (emphasis mine):

[…] “The Group will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.”

Think about that sentence structure very carefully. They are “adding to” the preexisting list…. admitting the group (aka Big Tech) already have access to the the intelligence-sharing database… and also admitting there is a preexisting list created by the Five Eyes consortium.

Obviously, who and what is defined as “extremist content” will be determined by the Big Tech insiders themselves. This provides a gateway, another plausible deniability aspect, to cover the Intelligence Branch from any oversight.

When the Intelligence Branch within government wants to conduct surveillance and monitor American citizens, they run up against problems due to the Constitution of the United States. They get around those legal limitations by sub-contracting the intelligence gathering, the actual data mining, and allowing outside parties (contractors) to have access to the central database.

The government cannot conduct electronic searches (4th amendment issue) without a warrant; however, private individuals can search and report back as long as they have access. What is being admitted is exactly that preexisting partnership. The difference is that Big Tech will flag the content from within their platforms, and now a secondary database filled with the extracted information will be provided openly for the Intelligence Branch to exploit.

The volume of metadata captured by the NSA has always been a problem because of the filters needed to make the targeting useful. There is a lot of noise in collecting all data that makes the parts you really want to identify more difficult to capture. This new admission puts a new massive filtration system in the metadata that circumvents any privacy protections for individuals.

Previously, the Intelligence Branch worked around the constitutional and unlawful search issue by using resources that were not in the United States. A domestic U.S. agency, working on behalf of the U.S. government, cannot listen on your calls without a warrant. However, if the U.S. agency sub-contracts to say a Canadian group, or foreign ally, the privacy invasion is no longer legally restricted by U.S. law.

What was announced in June 2021 is an alarming admission of a prior relationship along with open intent to define their domestic political opposition as extremists.

July 26 (Reuters) – A counterterrorism organization formed by some of the biggest U.S. tech companies including Facebook (FB.O) and Microsoft (MSFT.O) is significantly expanding the types of extremist content shared between firms in a key database, aiming to crack down on material from white supremacists and far-right militias, the group told Reuters.

Until now, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT) database has focused on videos and images from terrorist groups on a United Nations list and so has largely consisted of content from Islamist extremist organizations such as Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos – often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence – and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism. It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.

The firms, which include Twitter (TWTR.N) and Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) YouTube, share “hashes,” unique numerical representations of original pieces of content that have been removed from their services. Other platforms use these to identify the same content on their own sites in order to review or remove it. (read more)

The influence of the Intelligence Branch now reaches into our lives, our personal lives. In the decades before 9/11/01 the intelligence apparatus intersected with government, influenced government, and undoubtedly controlled many institutions with it. The legislative oversight function was weak and growing weaker, but it still existed and could have been used to keep the IC in check. However, after the events of 9/11/01, the short-sighted legislative reactions opened the door to allow the surveillance state to weaponize.

After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power. The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what the installation of Barack Obama was all about.

The Obama network took pre-assembled intelligence weapons we should never have allowed to be created and turned those weapons into tools for his radical and fundamental change. The target was the essential fabric of our nation. Ultimately, this corrupt political process gave power to create the Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. From that perspective the fundamental change was successful.

Last point, they all knew.  Every person in the DC system, regardless of where they are located in their containment silos, knew what had taken place. They all knew.  No one in DC did not know.  This is the very reason why both parties desperately needed to get Andrew Weissmann and Robert Mueller installed.

The 2017 special counsel, under the guise of a Trump-Russia investigation, WAS THE COVER UP plan.  The intent of the special counsel was to protect all the inside and outside agents across all branches who has been working together against Trump throughout his candidacy and into his presidency.  Not a single elected DC politician did not know this was the intent.

WHAT NOW? There is a way to stop and deconstruct the Intelligence Branch, but it requires some outside-the-box thinking and reliance on the Constitution as a tool to radically change one element within government. In the interim, we must remain focused on the three tiers that we need for success.

• Tier One is “tactical civics” at a local level. Engaged and active citizen participation at the community, city, town and hamlet level of society. This is what might be described as grassroots level, school board level; city council level; county commissioner level.

• Tier Two is “extreme federalism” at a state level. Engaged and active citizen participation through your State House and State Senate representative. This is state level assembly and action demands upon the State House, State Senate and State Governor.

• Tier Three the challenge of “federal offices” on a national level. This is where CTH outlines a singular action that can be taken upstream that allows the first two tiers to retake control over federal offices. This is where we throw the One Ring into the fire of Mordor. {Go Deep}

I am confident that ultimately “We The People” will win.  How we can execute the “One Ring” solution is more challenging; in the interim, tactical civics and extreme federalism are doable right now, in this next 2022 election cycle.

Source

Radical Pro-Migration Advocate Esther Olavarria Exits White House

White House migration chief Esther Olavarria, a long-standing advocate of more migration and more amnesty, is quitting, marking a win for President Joe Biden’s network of East Coast advisors.

“This is going to be a real loss,” tweeted Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a pro-migration advocate at the pro-migration American Immigration Council.

Olavarria served as the deputy immigration official in Biden’s Domestic Policy Council. But Biden’s poll ratings were crushed by his migration deputies’ refusal to guard the border from poor migrants.

Susan Rice, who runs the policy council, provided polite praise of Olavarria in a statement to Politico:

“I could not be more grateful for Esther Olavarria’s myriad contributions to the Biden-Harris Administration, particularly her work to reverse the cruel and reckless policies of the previous Administration and to implement President Biden’s vision for a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system.”

“I often call Esther the ‘OG’ of immigration. Her expertise, wisdom, pragmatism and compassion are unmatched,” Rice added, according to a tweet from CNN.

White House officials earlier announced the exit of Tyler Moran, who formerly worked for pro-amnesty billionaire Laurene Powell Jobs.

(L-R) Filmmaker Michael Camerini, film subject Angela “Angie” Kelley, filmmaker Shari Robertson, and film subjects Esther Olavarria and Frank Sharry attend the HBO Documentary screening of “Senators’ Bargain” on March 16, 2010 in New York City. (Michael Loccisano/Getty for HBO)

Alida Garcia, a top lobbyist at the pro-migration advocacy group, FWD.us, worked in the White House but was let go after several months.

Other amnesty advocates have left the Department of Homeland Security, which is still run by pro-migration zealot Alejandro Mayorkas.

In September, officials announced the departure of David Shahoulian, Assistant Secretary for Border and Immigration Policy. He is a former Hill aide to Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the top Democrat on the House immigration committee.

The exits are a win for Biden’s East Coast deputies, many of whom are pushing back against Biden’s pro-migration progressive deputies.

The pro-migration deputies are tied into the West Coast faction in the White House. The West Coast faction is headed by Vice President Kamala Harris, who is backed by the West Coast technology investors at FWD.us, and by their subordinate immigration advocates. This wing has pushed far-left policies that have damaged Biden’s polls and his ability to accomplish other goals.

But Biden’s East Coast faction is made of older Democrat staffers who are more willing to recognize the civic costs and political risks of easy migration. TheHill.com reported in December:

Sources pointed to Biden’s history as a loyal boss who enjoys a tight-knit inner circle of aides he has known for years, including White House chief of staff Ron Klain, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and senior advisers Steve Ricchetti and Mike Donilon.

Biden is on both sides of the dispute. He has repeatedly praised migration while also arguing that labor shortages help to raise Americans’ wages. In May 2021, he argued that a tight labor market spreads wealth to all corners of society:

“Full employment” also means more options and opportunities for workers — including Black, Hispanic workers, Amer- — Asian American workers, women — who’ve been left behind in previous economic recoveries when the labor market never tighten- — tightened up enough.

Look, this isn’t just good for individual workers, it also makes our economy a whole lot stronger.  When American workers have more money to spend, American businesses benefit.  We all benefit.  Higher wages and more options for workers are a good thing.

Amid the turmoil, DHS chief Mayorkas is mapping out a careful plan that uses regulations to open a wide variety of quasi-legal doorways on the border.

This “fair, orderly, and humane immigration system” is intended to minimize TV publicity and public alarm while delivering myriad workers, consumers, and renters to the Democrats’ business allies — and many migrants who may eventually become voters for the Democratic Party.

Source

White House: Officials Should Use Coronavirus Funds to Fight Crime

A White House memo released Monday directs state and local governments to use coronavirus funds to fight crime and applauds those already doing so.

The memo, first reported by Axios, was authored by Susan Rice, the Domestic Policy Council director; Gene Sperling, who is supposed to oversee the spending from the $1.9 trillion relief package; and Julie Rodriguez, White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs director.

The memo was released hours before a President Joe Biden event designed to show his administration’s awareness of the crime rate spikes, as Breitbart News reported.

The memo titled, How Local and State Government Can – and Should – Use the President’s Gun Crime Reduction Strategy and Historic Rescue Plan Funding to Improve Public Safety, clarifies their plans.

“The core of the President’s plan is a partnership with cities and states, equipping local leaders with historic levels of federal funding and a range of tools to address the multifaceted challenge of gun violence,” the missive states.

The administration’s strategy will use the $350 billion from the American Rescue Plan for “financial support and clear guidance to provide state, local, territorial, and tribal governments the money they need to put more police officers on the beat.”

Officials are also able to use the money for “hiring above pre-pandemic levels in communities experiencing an increase in gun violence associated with the pandemic” and use the funds for “other resources, training, and accountability they need to engage in effective community policing.”

Additionally, the memo states the funds are authorized to be used and should be allocated to “support evidence-based community violence intervention programs, summer employment and educational opportunities, and other investments that we know will reduce crime and make our neighborhoods safer.”

Some Democrats have recently shown urgency to curtail the rise in crime. Republican groups have consistently attacked Democrats on defunding the police, the rise in crime, and even blaming the rise in law enforcement retirements on low morale.

A recent report showed attacks on police had risen 91 percent in 2020, within the ambush-style attacks on the men and women in law enforcement. In addition, another report showed some cities had had a crime surge in 2021 as high at 533 percent for homicides and 126 percent for shootings.

There was also a study done by the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington policy institute, which found from April 2020 to 2021, “retirements were up 45 percent and resignations rose by 18 percent in the year.” The numbers were compared to the previous 12 months.

In recent weeks the White House has tried to distance itself from the Defund the Police movement and has even gone so far as to blame Republicans for the effort. 

Source

Biden’s Deputies Urge Children to Demand Transgender Status

President Joe Biden’s top deputies joined with transgender activists on Wednesday to encourage children to claim they are suffering from anti-transgender discrimination.

“If you or someone you know is facing discrimination because you are transgender, we want to know,” said Kristen Clarke, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, said in the June 30 YouTube broadcast.

“You can file a complaint now … We see you, we hear you, and we will keep fighting for your inclusion, your dignity, and your equal rights under law,” said Clarke, who also suggested that the Supreme Court will back the children’s claim.

“We are on your side, we’ve got your back,” said Miguel Cardona, the Secretary of Education. He continued:

We stand with you, we see you, we hear you. We respect you. You matter. You are brave. And you are already strong, standing in the light that emanates and you can be unapologetically and authentically you. Continue to be courageous by speaking up and speaking up when you believe that you have experienced discrimination.

“You are so brave,” said Rachel Levine, a transgender man who is the Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human Services. “I want you to know your president has your backs …  and I will do everything that I can to support and advocate for our community,” Levine added.

“This transgender convening comes across like an advertisement to young people that offers fame through activism,” responded Natasha Chart, a feminist who argues that women’s rights can only exist when they are based on the recognition that women are biologically different from men.

The White House’s message to young people, she said, is:

The President of the United States and his advisors are lifting you up on this pedestal and calling you an activist and making this an important part of your identity — at a time when [young] people’s psyches are fragile because they’re in adolescence, and it’s a time of a lot of turmoil … They are encouraging these kids, ‘Come out as this, and someone will make you famous.’

The little-publicized, online-only, 80-minute “Convening on Transgender Equality” showcased 21 speakers. They included several children,  transgender activists, a few elected politicians, as well the cabinet secretaries, plus White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki and Susan Rice, the director of the United States Domestic Policy Council.

President Biden did not appear in the video.

Most of the people in the video who claimed to be transgender are men who adopt the stereotypical appearance of women.

None of the speakers acknowledged the risks of claimed transgender status — the health risk from drugs, hormones, and surgerythe sexual and social isolation of people who claim to be transgender, or the alternative mental health sources of the children’s claims.

The speakers did not mention the evidence that children move in and out of claimed transgender status, for example, because they are seeking a female refuge from porn-watching boys and youths.

The speakers also ignored the evidence that lesbian and gay kids may be pushed into transgender declarations, the right and proven ability of parents to help raise their children, the authority of states and schools boards to set school rules, nor the risk imposed on other children by authority figures who champion the sexual claims of fewer than one percent of children.

The speakers did not mention the polls showing deep opposition to the far-reaching demands of the transgender ideology. That ideology demands that the government penalize Americans who disagree that a person’s sex in law and culture is set by their “gender identity” instead of their obvious and unchangeable biology.

For example, a September 2020 poll of 3,500 likely voters, conducted by Spry Strategies and sponsored by the Women’s Liberation Front, showed that 54 percent of voters strongly oppose children undergoing physical sex-related surgery or taking cross-sex hormones. Just eight percent strongly agreed.

In the video, White House officials showcased many children and young people who claim to be transgender, including people aged 11 and 16.

“My name is Libby Gonzales. I live in Texas, and I’m 11 years old, and I use she/her pronouns,” one child said, prompting the presenter — Chris Mosier — to encourage the child by saying, “Excellent!”

The child continued: “I really love swimming. I feel like I get to be myself when I’m swimming. And I really also enjoy martial arts, basketball, and yoga, and I’d really like to try tennis.”

“I’m joined by incredible youth leaders and organizers who are driving change in their communities, leaders that identify as transgender girls and young women and or gender/non-binary youth of color,” said another transgender advocate as he encouraged additional children to speak up.

One teenager responded:

We are at the crossroads of racism, sexism, trans and transphobia. We need policies written and passed — passed with our input — to protect us and to protect our rights. Black Girls, black trans-girls, and gender nonconforming youth of color are always forgotten or [are] intentionally left out of the conversation. And we have the power to change that. I want to live a life that is free and I deserve to … I am 16 years old, and I’ve been working, I mean organizing, for five years. Organizing is a part of my identity.

[embedded content]

Despite much contradictory evidence, the video echoed threats that parents who disagree with transgender claims may lose their children to suicide. “If you were to see the numbers of the percentages of trans kids who are unsupported in their home environment, their school environment, their suicide rates are astronomically high compared to their cisgender counterparts,” said Alex Cardona, a “female to male transgender.”

Speakers also portrayed government-run schools and centers as safe havens for teenagers in conflict with their parents. “People, especially LGBTQ people, their biggest support system could be at school [because] they could not have supportive of household,” Alex Cardona said.

“My hope is that for LGBTQ youth in foster care, that they can be in a place where they also have the support that they need, that they can have loving and affirming homes because affirming LGBTQ youth is suicide prevention,” said former lesbian Elliott Orrin Hinkle.

Throughout the video, officials praised children who claim sexual transgenders as civil rights heroes. Rice said:

Transgender youth are brave, and they’re strong. every young person deserves to be able to live freely as their authentic self, to be met with unconditional support. This is a time of both great hope and possibility in the transgender civil rights movement, with more and more young people able to come out as transgender, gender non-conforming or non-binary, and be loved and supported just as they are.

Biden’s deputies are “exploiting progressive [people’s] instinct for fairness and desire for everyone to be treated well and to have fair opportunities,” said Chart. But their talk about protecting children clashes with their reckless encouragement of children to make life-changing decisions, she said, adding:

In other contexts, such as when you’re talking about the school-to-prison pipeline, these same progressives would describe it as dehumanizing to give an adult prison term [to children] …

[White House officials] are acting like we learned nothing from the catastrophes that befell the lives of the [Hollywood] child stars of the 80s.

Numerous polls show the public wants to protect their kids from transgender activists, from medical risks, and from the social isolation ensured by a transgender identity.

GOP leaders in Congress have been largely silent about the issue, despite a roar of protest from GOP activists and a nationwide wave of protective legislation by GOP legislators. For example, the Twitter account used by GOP leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy has no mentions of “transgender.” He also did not speak in the floor debate when the Democrats’ pro-transgender bill was passed in March.

Broad and vague polls show public sympathy for the Democrats’ transgender legislation. But detailed polls show deep and widespread rejection of transgender demands amid plenty of anecdotal evidence that many Democrats also oppose the transgender ideology.

The strong opposition is fuelling support for state legislation in many states that protect children from further damage. A May 2021 Gallup poll, for example, showed 62 percent to 34 percent opposition to transgender entry into women’s sports. Even the National Republican Senatorial Committee, run by Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), noted that one of its April polls of Latino voters showed 51 percent strong opposition to just 15 percent strong support for the demand that transgender boys be allowed to play in girls’ athletics.

Source

Sorry, Corrupt Media: Biden Is The Worst Left-Wing Culture Warrior Since Obama

Sorry, Corrupt Media: Biden Is The Worst Left-Wing Culture Warrior Since Obama

In a primary full of socialists, President Joe Biden clinched the Democratic nomination and rode his way to the White House on the appearance of a supposed moderate, a pragmatist who promised an American “return to normalcy” in a 21st-century digital version of the early front-porch campaigns.

To those paying attention, however, Biden’s radicalism was clear from the start, with normal nowhere in sight. He ran on a platform cloaked in centrism only by virtue of what others were proposing on stage. Even McClatchy wrote in September 2019, “Biden’s current set of policy prescriptions would likely be considered radical if they had been proposed in any previous Democratic presidential primary.”

The following summer, Biden’s platform was taken over by California Sen. Kamala Harris joining the ticket and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders dominating the discussions for the “Unity Task Force Recommendations” to unite Democrat support after a highly fractured primary. Harris accepted the vice-presidential nomination as a senator with the hardest left voting record in the upper chamber, even to the left of Sanders, an open socialist. So true to form, Harris was characterized as a “pragmatic moderate” by the corporate press.

In Biden’s first 100 days, the new president has conformed to his promise to aggressively govern in pursuit of a progressive, partisan agenda, dismissing dollars as finite while weaponizing the federal government to mandate leftism in the culture wars. By August last year, Biden’s platform included plans for another $10 trillion in spending. By May of this year, Biden’s price tags have already hit $6 trillion, with nearly $2 trillion signed and trillions more in the pipeline for Democrats’ central-state planning by way of infrastructure and the expansion of the welfare state.

Yet while spending soars, provoking comparisons of Biden as the 21st-century Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the new president launched his first 48 hours in the White House with a hard-left assault on the culture wars, wielding the power of the pen to unilaterally enact sweeping social policy on issues from the erasure of women’s sports to open borders.

Biden signed 17 executive orders by the weekend of his inauguration, more than were issued in the first month of their presidencies by Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton combined. According to FiveThirtyEight, Biden signed 40 executive orders within his first 100 days, surpassing every predecessor for most orders signed in the same time going back to Roosevelt. It’s a convenient way to circumvent republican governance, when Biden has only signed 11 new bills so far — less than most predecessors — in the absence of a legislative mandate.

Biden only captured the White House by less than 43,000 votes across three states, with a Senate evenly divided and the House narrowly controlled by the same party. In other words, the American public by no means demanded a fundamental transformation of their country, but that’s what they’re getting.

On his first day, Biden signed an executive order effectively eliminating women’s sports with the mandated inclusion of men who identify as women in girls’ leagues at any institution that receives federal tax dollars.

Biden has also aggressively pushed for passage of the Equality Act, a campaign pledge he reiterated in his first address to a joint session of Congress, a majority of whom watched from outside the chamber. Despite the deceptive label, the Equality Act, introduced in March, is by no means a genuine step towards equality. Rather, it punishes Americans who dissent from the leftist dogma on gender identity and sexual orientation.

On immigration, it’s no coincidence the United States faces the worst border crisis in decades just weeks into the Democrat administration. In March, U.S. Customs and Border Protection took in more than 172,000 illegal aliens in the busiest month in more than 20 years as migrant detention facilities overflow far beyond even pre-pandemic capacity.

The influx of migrants was explicitly provoked by Biden’s adamant demands for an open border, dating back to his soft rhetoric on immigration from the campaign trail. Central American caravans began to make their way to the southern border the moment Biden’s election was announced in November.

“He’s going to help all of us. He’s giving us 100 days to get to the U.S. and give us legal [unclear] papers, so we can get a better life for our kids, and for our families,” one Honduran migrant told CNN on the trip in January as Biden prepared to take office.

Within his first 100 days, Biden halted construction on the southern border wall, tried to implement a moratorium on deportations, reinstated Obama-era protections for the undocumented, and ended Trump’s effective “Remain in Mexico” policy that kept asylum seekers on the other side of the border until processed for legal entry.

Biden is all for the left’s critical race theory, a revolutionary ideology to seek the fundamental transformation of American society, tasking White House Domestic Policy Council lead Susan Rice with “rooting out systemic racism” as the focal point of her mission.

In schools, Biden’s Department of Education has pushed grants to make classrooms “incorporate teaching and learning practices that reflect the diversity, identities, histories, contributions, and experiences of all students.” Works encouraged in curriculum to achieve those goals include The New York Times’ anti-American “1619 Project” and Ibram X. Kendi’s “How to Be an Antiracist.”

No issue has been left untouched by the new administration redefining the standards of what it means to run a progressive presidency in the post-Obama era. Biden reinstated taxpayer-funded overseas abortion, called for new restrictive gun laws, and even weighed in on state voting laws to condemn voter ID laws as a relic of Jim Crow, as if the idea black people can’t obtain a valid ID to vote isn’t racist itself.

But The New York Times’ analysis of the new administration is “a nothingburger on the culture wars.”

Source

Biden Caves To Left, Axes Police Reform Study For Immediate Activist Action

Biden Caves To Left, Axes Police Reform Study For Immediate Activist Action

President Joe Biden is shelving a new commission to study police reform in favor of an immediate push to pass left-wing legislation through Congress, Politico reported Sunday.

Biden’s director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, Susan Rice, who has been tasked with “rooting out systemic racism” as a focal point of her duties told Politico the administration’s top priority has shifted to passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

“Based on close, respectful consultation with partners in the civil rights community, the administration made the considered judgement that a police commission, at this time, would not be the most effective way to deliver on our top priority in this area, which is to sign the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act,” Rice told the magazine. The police commission was a primary campaign pledge from the former vice president on the trail.

The bill introduced by California Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass, who was chair of the Congressional Black Caucus from 2019 to 2021, passed the House last month primarily along party lines, with one Republican voting for and two Democrats voting against. The law lowers standards to prosecute police officers and places new restrictions on use of force and no-knock warrants.

Bass also introduced the legislation last summer in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death under the knee of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who’s ongoing trial this month has increased fear of another outbreak of civil unrest. Two weeks of nationwide rioting last year wrecked an estimated $1 to $2 billion in damage over 14 days alone in what’s become the most explosive series of riots in 70 years. The estimate from Property Claims Services (PCS) marks the Floyd riots 66 times more destructive than the Capitol riot in January.

The bill proposed by Democrats and championed by the White House also creates a national database of police misconduct to prevent officers from employment in other agencies, requires the use of dashcams and body cameras, bans chokeholds, and implements mandated racial sensitivity training. States and municipalities found non-compliant with the law would lose federal funding.

Source

Joe Biden Backtracks on Police Oversight Commission as Black Lives Matter Riots Erupt in Minnesota over Police Shooting

Joe Biden Backtracks on Police Oversight Commission as Black Lives Matter Riots Erupt in Minnesota over Police Shooting

President Joe Biden has backtracked on a campaign pledge to establish a police oversight commission as Black Lives Matter riots erupted Sunday in Minnesota following a police shooting.

Director of the Domestic Policy Council Susan Rice announced the decision to Politico:

Based on close, respectful consultation with partners in the civil rights community, the administration made the considered judgment that a police commission, at this time, would not be the most effective way to deliver on our top priority in this area, which is to sign the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act into law.

Rice also said the White House is working on alternative measures with Congress to address police reform by “working with Congress to swiftly enact meaningful police reform that brings profound, urgently needed change.”

However, Senate Democrats filibustered police reform legislation presented by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) in 2020, “blocking an effort at bipartisan reforms in the wake of nationwide unrest over the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis last month,” Breitbart’s Joel B. Pollak reported.

In response to the Senate’s gridlock, Biden said in Philadelphia during his campaign, “the federal government should give the cities and states the tools and resources they need to implement reforms,” such as establishing a police oversight commission.

But such a commission was opposed by Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and a Black Lives Matter sympathizer. He told Politico, “We also agree with the White House decision to forgo the creation of a commission to study the problem.” Adding, “Congress is by far the more appropriate venue to consider changes in law regarding police accountability.”

Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP, also told Politico the past commissions “resulted in no policy change.”

“Without full authority to hold police officers and agencies accountable” any commission “is more window dressing unless the purpose of the commission was to build the public support for passage of the George Floyd act in the Senate,” Johnson concluded.

Biden’s broken campaign promise comes as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) mobilized the National Guard Sunday after nearly 500 rioters vandalized the Brooklyn Center Police Department after the death of Daunte Wright, a black man with an outstanding warrant who was shot and killed by a police officer during a traffic stop. Wright’s death triggered the rioters to vandalize the police station before proceeding to loot local businesses.

“I am closely monitoring the situation in Brooklyn Center. Gwen and I are praying for Daunte Wright’s family as our state mourns another life of a Black man taken by law enforcement,” Walz wrote on Twitter.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)