The real climate science deniers


Continuing to focus on carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases,” as the primary or sole cause of climate changes and weather events, will ensure that we never get beyond the politically driven climate and energy battles in which we are now engaged

Paul Driessen image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesMay 17, 2020

The real climate science deniers

Manmade climate crisis promoters reject inconvenient evidence of natural climate change

Fifty years ago, I helped organize Earth Day #1 programs on my college campus, calling attention to serious pollution problems that afflicted much of the USA. Over the ensuing decades, laws, regulations, and changed attitudes, practices and technologies reduced most of that pollution, often dramatically.

I didn’t buy into the 1970 end-is-nigh, doom-and-gloom, billions-will-die hysteria that Ron Stein and Ron Baileysummarize, including the manmade global cooling crisis. I don’t buy it today, either – certainly not this year’s Earth Day focus on the alleged manmade global warming crisis, also blamed on emissions of carbon dioxide, the same gas that humans and animals exhale, and plants use to grow. We’re told the crisis is unprecedented, and poses existential threats to humanity and planet. What nonsense.

But what I find fascinating in all this is the steadfast, often nasty determination of scientists, politicians and interest groups promoting alarmist themes – and profiting immensely from them – to reject and deny any science, history and evidence that undermines their claim that nothing like this ever happened before.

The “highest ever” temperatures are a mere few tenths or even hundredths of a degree above previous records set many decades ago. The United States recently enjoyed a record 12-year respite from Category 3-5 hurricanes, ended finally by Harvey and Irma in 2017. Violent tornadoes were far fewer during the last 35 years than during the 35 years before that, and the complete absence of violent twisters in 2018 was unprecedented in US history. Modern day floods and droughts were certainly no worse than past floods or the multi-decade droughts that devastated Anasazi, Mayan and other civilizations.

However, alarmists insist, Earth’s climate and weather were stable and unchanging until humans began using coal, oil and natural gas. We must eradicate fossil fuels now, they say, regardless of what biofuel, battery, wind and solar replacements (and mining for raw materials to manufacture them) might have on wildlife, scenery, environmental values or human rights. Their disconnect from reality is astounding.

Roman and Medieval Warm Periods

Equally fascinating is the notion that melting glaciers are something new. It amounts to asserting that everything was just peachy until American, European and Greenland glaciers started melting a few decades ago, threatening us with catastrophic sea level rise. It amounts to claiming the glacial epochs never happened; their mile-high ice sheets never blanketed a third of the Northern Hemisphere, multiple times, with warm periods in between; and seas haven’t risen some 400 feet since the Pleistocene ice age, leaving the entrance to Cosquer Cave and its Paleolithic paintings 115 feet beneath the Mediterranean.

It amounts to claiming the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods never happened, and weren’t followed by the Little Ice Age, when priests performed exorcisms, asking God to keep glaciers from inundating villages in the Alps of Europe. It’s as though we couldn’t possibly be finding what we are finding today.

In the latest example, government and university researchers recently found numerous Viking-era artifacts along a Norwegian mountain pass that had been heavily traveled for at least 700 years, but then was buried beneath the ice and lost to history for 1,000 years. Locals used the rough 2,200-foot-long pass to travel between summer and winter lodgings, while long-distance trekkers used it as a trade route.

Within the treasure trove were tunics, mittens, horse shoes and bits, remnants of sleds used to haul food and gear over winter snow, a small shelter, and even the remains of a dog with a collar and leash. They all came to light because the glacial ice is again receding, as Earth continues its post Little Ice Age warming.

Alarmists insist the warming is due to fossil fuels, and deny that it is just part of natural climate cycles

Alarmists insist the warming is due to fossil fuels, and deny that it is just part of natural climate cycles. And much more evidence of past warming and cooling periods has also come to light in recent years.

In 1991, German hikers found the incredible mummified and heavily tattooed remains of “Oetzi the Ice Man” sticking out of the ice in the Oetzal Alps near the Italian-Austrian border, at an altitude of some 10,000 feet. A partial longbow, bearskin hat and other artifacts were found nearby. He had died about 5,300 years ago from an arrow wound and had the blood of four different people on his clothes and weapons. He is further evidence of human habitation in these alpine areas during past warm periods.

Tourists and archeological teams have also discovered parts of shoes, leather clothing, fragments of a wooden bowl and numerous other items from 3000 to 4500 BC (BCE) that have emerged from the alpine ice. They are among the oldest objects ever found in the Alps. A Bronze Age pin, Roman coins and early Medieval artifacts have also been found. They show how these mountain passes and trails, impassible during cold, more glaciated periods, served as vital trade routes in periodic warmer centuries.

Norwegian ice fields show shrinkage and growth patterns similar to those of the alpine glaciers, says Norwegian glacial scientist Atle Nesje. The archaeological findings “seem to fit quite nicely with our glacier reconstructions,” he adds, which helps us understand past, present and future climate changes.

Years of research by Swiss and other scientists have produced similar findings – sometimes human artifacts, but also plant and animal remains, in areas of newly melted ice. In one location in the Swiss Alps, University of Berne geology professor Christian Schluechter found pieces of wood 12-24 inches thick and the remains of a moor. Melting waters had flushed them out from under the glacier. That means the ice there is hardly “perpetual,” he says. There were multiple periods of warmer weather and less ice.

In fact, carbon-14 dating shows ten “clearly definable time windows” over the last 10,000 years – periods when glaciers were limited to regions up to 1,000 feet higher in the Alps than today. This means that, for multiple long stretches of time, “the Alps were greener than they are today,” Schluechter concludes.

Inca children sacrificed 500 years ago in Argentina’s Andes have also emerged from melting glaciers.

Off the Florida coast, the Mel and Deo Fisher archeological diving team didn’t just find the famous Spanish galleon Nuestra Señora de Atocha, which sank during a ferocious 1622 hurricane, or only the British slave ship Henrietta Marie, which went down during a 1700 hurricane, after leaving 190 Africans in Jamaica to be sold as slaves. They also found charred tree branches and pine cones from a forest fire 8,400 years ago, when this ocean area 35 miles from Key West was still well above present day sea levels!

Even an entire forest has been discovered, protruding from the melting Mendenhall Glacier near Juneau, Alaska – an area I visited several years ago. Roots, stumps and large segments of entire upright spruce or hemlock trees have already been found across several acres. They are the remains of a forest that thrived there for as long as 2,350 years, until it was buried by glacial ice around 1,000 years ago.

The chronicle of amazing discoveries yielded by melting glaciers goes on and on. Their most important lesson is that our current climate is but a snapshot in time, on a vibrant planet where climate change and extreme weather have been “real” since time began. Only a science-denying climate alarmist would refuse to recognize this. Simply put, there is nothing “unprecedented” about what we are seeing today.

This is dangerous stuff – sacrilegious, even. It pulls the rug from under demands for a post-Coronavirus Green New Deal. It must be suppressed. And frightened climate science deniers are doing their best to keep it out of “mainstream” and social media. Realists must do their best to disseminate climate facts.

Of course, it may be that these past climate changes were caused by carbon dioxide and water vapor from wheezing, snorting horses, oxen and humans – laboring at the edge of exhaustion, doing what our fossil-fuel-powered vehicles and equipment do for us today. But it’s far more likely that the changes were due to a complex and still poorly understood combination of solar and other powerful natural forces.

Climate alarmists may not want to recognize or discuss these natural fluctuations and causes. But the rest of us should, and this historic evidence must be a central part of that discussion.

Improving our knowledge of what these forces are and how they work together will enable us to better predict, prepare for and adapt to future climate changes. Continuing to focus on carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases,” as the primary or sole cause of climate changes and weather events, will ensure that we never get beyond the politically driven climate and energy battles in which we are now engaged.

LYING BRIGHTLY!


Testimony that was not sworn to, and remains unchallenged, has in fact unmasked the cynical agenda of Democrats to interfere with the 2020 election–and meant to damage the president and the American nation during a global pandemic crisis

Andrew G. Benjamin image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesMay 17, 2020

Rick Bright

Questions:

Can one assume that if the witness at a congressional hearing is either blocked from swearing in by the investigating committee, or is not sworn in to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, there may be a good reason?

Can one assume that if the witness happens to be a whistleblower, he may have an agenda behind his appearance other than what he says it is? What can the witness gain from Adam Schiff’s circus?

We found out during the fraudulent impeachment hearings from the whistleblower’s attorney, revealed right after the President was sworn into office in 2017, that the whistleblower and his attorney are both Democrat activists. They both had an agenda. It just happened to be the same as congressman Adam Schiff’s, Nancy Pelosi’s, Schmuck Schemer (not a misprint), and Jerrod Nadler.

We found at the Kavanaugh hearings that the chief witness, Christine Blasey Ford, committed a series of perjuries. Her own witnesses did not back up her fictious delusions. We found she too, had an agenda. We found her attorney also had a hidden agenda.

Can we assume that if a witness is prevented from swearing in, the witness can say anything he wants to say without the risking legal liability? In other words, he can make it all up as he goes, like a bull rampaging through the china shop. And then scurry away free from lies that are intended to smear, libel, impugn, soil, and damage.

Lying to congress under oath has severe penalties. One good reason for not wanting to be sworn in.

Take the 17 vehicle armored, masked FBI SWAT Team with 29 agents brandishing automatic weapons and bright lights, showing up at one’s home in the middle of the night.

That is exactly what happened to Trump ally Roger Stone. It is pretty much what happened to Trump ally Paul Manafort and others who questioned, and then got netted in the Mueller Witch Hunt started by Hillary Clinton’s Russia PP Dossier and Barack Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional abuse of power.

We are now uncovering Obama’s illegal  domestic spying operation. These self-dealing criminals enacted a coupwith fabricated evidence. Otherwise known as treason.

The Rich Bright testimony is a continuation of this ongoing process to replace an elected executive with a dictatorship of elites.

Dr. Richard Bright will not have to fear repercussions behind the fictions of his trumped up testimony. The pre-prepared statements written by Adam Schiff and Jerrod Nadler will replace a DOJ prosecution that can’t happen without the witness being sworn in. No evidence is needed either. After all, the evidence of the Russia Collusion after four years is still hiding somewhere in Adam Schiff’s pockets. It’s exactly as real as Barry Soetoro’s birth certificate.

That, is the point for the media event staged for children, a circus to convince the unknowing that up is down, and in is out. Never mind that all the major points Dr. Bright complained about were actually met by the crisis team—and then some. Never mind that China sent us defective masks. Never mind that Obama depleted the nation’s pandemic materials.

Never mind that the virus was being sent around the world along with five million tourists from Wuhan, China encouraged to travel. Never mind that China was quietly buying up the world’s supply of masks.

Never mind that Dr. Bright’s performance was not believed among his peers, and not a single one of them have come forward to support his tale. A repeat of Christine Ford’s failed attempt to unseat a great jurist on the mere blathering of a crazed Democrat activist.

Never mind that the good doctor never met Donald Trump, or exchanged any information with him. Never mind that the “issues” Dr. Bright proposed against the president were not issues he ever raised during his time with the Fauci Team.

He disagreed you say, with Fauci, or others, or Trump?

So what?

BREITBART: “Dr. Rick Bright, the vaccine expert who claims he was ousted from his former position in the administration because of his opposition to the promotion of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for coronavirus, was already going to lose his job months before, according to information released on Twitter by Politico reporter Dan Diamond.”

(Boldfacing is this writer’s):
Diamond wrote “…..Jan. 2, about Bright’s imminent removal from BARDA for “incompetence and insubordination.” That was months before hydroxychloroquine became a topic of debate. The Trump administration has been working to oust Bright since last year, as officials battled with him over his management and leadership…” 
Ironically, Bright reversed himself soon enough and demanded more supplies of the drug HCQ:

“In March, Rick Bright requested the FDA issue an “Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for emergency use of oral formulations of chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate for the treatment of 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19)…” 

In other words, Bright was singing with the choir all along about the shortage of pandemic supplies and the delivery of which no America attempted to delay. He did not disagree with others on Team Trump. Earlier he and his boss, Dr. Fauci opposed the very drug that has been proven to work around the globe, and just in last week’s NYU study, to save the lives of 44% of treated patients! In other words, Bright—and Dr. Anthony Fauci—were wrong. Bright was insubordinate, and got fired.

 

More importantly, against the hysterical juggernaut of media political hacks and their Democrats who were pooh-pooing the drug (as these people would rather let thousands of Americans die to prove a political point), Donald Trump stood firm and proved to be right all along about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

It is now a matter of record that this president will have saved tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives. No spin can change that fact.

This unmasking of a possible politically-motivated assault against the president, including a possible agenda that motivated Bright’s hostility, may not be accepted in politically-correct circles.

Too bad.

Certainly not proper to contemplate the obvious: that testimony that was not sworn to, and remains unchallenged, has in fact unmasked the cynical agenda of Democrats to interfere with the 2020 election—and meant to damage the president and the American nation during a global pandemic crisis.

Supreme Court Held Vaccines Can Be Mandated


The Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) held that vaccines can be mandated. They acknowledged many pros and cons of vaccines, but the court ultimately concluded that whether vaccines were the best (or even an effective) method to combat measles was not in its power to decide. Specifically, the court wrote, “there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone.” However, there was enough medical opinion of vaccine effectiveness that vaccines could be mandated by legislatures like that city’s governing council.

In other words, the court stated vaccines very well may later be found to be unsafe/ineffective, but sufficient information analyzed by elected officials at the time made it reasonable to mandate vaccines to combat smallpox in 1905.

Supreme Court Upheld no Liability for Death by Vaccine


The Supreme Cout held in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), that the section of the Vaccine Act of 1986 preempts all vaccine design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers. The case was decided on February 22, 2011. The Court, in a 6-2 opinion by Justice Scalia, held that the “plaintiffs design defect claims [were] expressly preempted by the Vaccine Act.” Thus, the court affirmed laws that vaccine manufacturers are not liable for vaccine-induced injury or death if they are “accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”

This was a very disappointing decision. They ruled that the Act’s structural quid pro quo also leads to the same conclusion. The vaccine manufacturers fund an informal, efficient compensation program for vaccine injuries in exchange for avoiding costly tort litigation and the occasional disproportionate jury verdict. Taxing their product to fund the compensation program, while leaving their liability for design defect virtually unaltered, would hardly coax them back into the market.

How Can Socrates Forecast Thing Well in Advance?


QUESTION: Martin –
In the video link you see the blank answer by former Fed Chairman Bernanke when asked, in a 60 Minutes interview, as to where he saw unemployment going/peaking in the last crisis of 2008 (at minute 3:27). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKx1BZd9bjQ
How do you best explain Socrates being able to pick up so far in advance, the heights that unemployment would reach in this crisis; rivaling or exceeding that of the Great Depression, even with this seemingly contrived “virus” being such a curve ball, out of left field?
I’ve been to a David Copperfield magic show before, but this latest call by Socrates beats any illusion I can recall from his show.
T

ANSWER: It is very difficult to Explain. Everything is connected. I learned with the Cycle of War that the computer was picking up the subtle movements of capital well in advance. It becomes clear that if you were going to start a war, you move your money in advance. This is what these people have been doing. I believe it began last summer with the sudden collapse in confidence in Europe. We ended up with the REPO Crisis hitting in September and they tried to excuse it as a freak event. But Socrates was correctly forecast that as well. At the May Rome World Economic Conference, I put up this slide as to the key issues to pay attention to – the liquidity crisis which manifested into the REPO Crisis because banks were no longer trusting banks.

You will also notice on that slide #3 the Political Chaos and the Rise of Authoritarianism. The computer is monitoring absolutely everything. You cannot hide from Socrates. My job is only to relay what it is showing. This forecast is not me personally. Major institutions and government call on me for they know it is the computer – not me personally. No human can possibly analyze global trends with such proficient skills.

I know it is hard for some to accept because everyone is used to analysts claiming they called this or that. Most of these people make one lucky call and then lose their shirt thereafter. NOBODY can be trusted with forecasting from a gut perspective. You can get lucky once, but not consistently.

I had inside info that there were elites who knew there would be a virus “coming” and sold out. That was my connection. Personally, I questioned that forecast of how could unemployment rise so fast when even in the Great Depression it took 3 years to reach 25%. NEVER in my wildest dreams would I have personally been able to forecast that unemployment would reach Great Depression levels in a matter of weeks. We cannot make such forecasts in reality as a human being. Anyone who claims they did is a fraud or it was some lucky guess. This has NEVER taken place in history.

Socrates was picking up everything. It works out the trend from these subtle movements. This is why I had stated from the outset this was FAKE, it was manipulated, and their claims this virus would last for 18 months was a fraud. We have every disease in the system and there is NO precedent whatsoever for any virus do that. I reported the timing was for the peak would be the week of April 6th. Again, that was no some personal guess. I reported how long SAR lasted. There was absolutely ZERO support for this virus extending to 18 months. That was an outright FRAUD and it was without any scientific support.

All I can say is that the trend can be determined by Socrates because like war, instead of moving your money ahead of an invasion, this time they were doing that ahead of the revelation that they would use this virus as a psychological tool to shut down the world economy for Climate Change but use the scare tactic of the virus to create a global lockdown.

Sunday Talks: Doug Collins Discusses China Confrontation and Mike Flynn Targeting…


Representative Doug Collins of Georgia appears for an interview with Maria Bartiromo to discuss holding China accountable and the ongoing revelations surrounding the Obama administration targeting of Michael Flynn and President Trump.

AG Barr Not So Confident in FBI Director Chris Wray Anymore – Video…


More than a week after CBS first constructed their editorial narrative they finally released the full interview between Catherine Herridge and AG Bill Barr.  Many people read the transcript; however, thankfully Michael Sheridan excerpts a portion of the video that doesn’t come across in the transcript.

When the attorney general is questioned about “still having confidence” in FBI Director Christopher Wray, a newly articulated hesitancy is visible that doesn’t come across in the transcript. WATCH:

.

Since February 2019 Bill Barr has been a staunch and very public defender of Chris Wray. However, with new revelations about recent FBI efforts to block the release of information as it relates to Michael Flynn, it now appears the AG has less confidence.

This shift is important because as the public have a renewed focused on the question of who illegally leaked Flynn’s communication with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, there has always been a rather curious contrast issue with the known classified intelligence leaking of James Wolfe.  If finding Flynn’s leaker is important then why didn’t the DOJ/FBI take action when they found a classified intelligence leaker in 2018?

The position of Bill Barr today is a direct result of decisions made by the DOJ and FBI in the Fall of 2017 & Summer of 2018. The events surrounding the leaking of the FISA warrant used against U.S. person Carter Page, and the 2018 DOJ decision not to prosecute SSCI Security Director James Wolfe for those leaks.

The Summer of 2018 was the fork in the road for the DOJ and FBI.

Attorney General Jeff Session was recused, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was in charge and the Mueller investigation was ongoing. That was when the DOJ made a decision not to prosecute Wolfe for leaking classified information. DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu signed-off on a plea deal where Wolfe plead guilty to only a single count of lying to the FBI.

If the DOJ had pursued the case against Wolfe for leaking the FISA application, everything would have been different.  The American electorate would have seen evidence of what was taking place in the background effort to remove President Trump. We would be in an entirely different place today if that prosecution or trial had taken place.

Three 2018 events revealed the Wolfe issue:

EVENT ONE – On February 9th, 2018, the media reported on text messages from 2017 between Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer, a lobbyist named Adam Waldman.

EVENT TWO – Four months after the Mark Warner texts were made public, on June 8th, 2018, another headline story surfaced.  An indictment for Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Security Director James Wolfe was unsealed on June 7th, 2018.

EVENT THREE – Slightly less than two months after release of the Wolfe indictment, another headline story.  On July 21st, 2018, the DOJ/FBI declassified and publicly released the FISA application(s) used against former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.

♦ Later on December 14th 2018 a fourth albeit buried public release confirmed everything.  The FBI filed a sentencing recommendation proving it was the Carter Page FISA that was leaked by Wolfe:

A prosecution of Wolfe would have exposed a complicit conspiracy between corrupt U.S. intelligence actors and the United States senate (SSCI). Two branches of government essentially working on one objective; the removal of a sitting president. The DOJ decision not to prosecute Wolfe for leaking the classified FISA application protected multiple U.S. agencies and congress.

In 2018 DAG Rod Rosenstein could not prosecute James Wolfe without exposing ‘seditious‘ activity within the U.S. government itself.  Not pretend sedition or theoretical sedition, but an actual pre-planned subversive operation with forethought and malice.

The 2018 decision in the Wolfe case is critical. That’s the fork in the road. If the Wolfe prosecution had continued it would have undoubtedly surfaced that key government officials and politicians were working together (executive and legislative).

Additionally, amid a series of documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee [SEE HERE] there is a rather alarming letter from the DOJ to the FISA Court in July 2018 that points toward another institutional cover-up.   [Link to Letter]

In the cover letter for this specific release to the Senate Judiciary and Senate Intelligence committees, the DOJ cites the January 7, 2020, FISA court order:

Keep in mind that prior to this release only the FISA court had seen this letter from the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).  As we walk through the alarming content of this letter I think you’ll identify the motive behind the FISC order to release it.

First, the letter in question was sent by the DOJ-NSD to the FISA Court on July 12, 2018.  It is critical to keep the date of the letter in mind as we review the content.

Aside from the date the important part of the first page is the motive for sending it. The DOJ is telling the court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application still contains “sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause” to approve the application.   The DOJ is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still valid.

However, it is within the justification of the application that alarm bells are found. On page six the letter identifies the primary participants behind the FISA redactions:

As you can see: Christopher Steele is noted as “Source #1”.  Glenn Simpson of Fusion-GPS is noted as “identified U.S. person” or “business associate”; and Perkins Coie is the “U.S-based law firm.”

Now things get very interesting.

On page #8 when discussing Christopher Steele’s sub-source, the DOJ notes the FBI found him to be truthful and cooperative.

This is an incredibly misleading statement to the FISA court because what the letter doesn’t say is that 18-months earlier the sub-source, also known in the IG report as the “primary sub-source”, informed the FBI that the material attributed to him in the dossier was essentially junk.

Let’s look at how the IG report frames the primary sub-source, and specifically notice the FBI contact and questioning took place in January 2017 (we now know that date to be January 12, 2017):

Those interviews with Steele’s primary sub-source took place in January, March and May of 2017; and clearly the sub-source debunked the content of the dossier itself.

Those interviews were 18-months, 16-months and 14-months ahead of the July 2018DOJ letter to the FISC.   The DOJ-NSD says the sub-source was “truthful and cooperative” but the DOJ doesn’t tell the court the content of the truthfulness and cooperation.  Why?

Keep in mind this letter to the court was written by AAG John Demers in July 2018.  Jeff Sessions was Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein was Deputy AG; Christopher Wray was FBI Director, David Bowditch is Deputy, and Dana Boente is FBI chief-legal-counsel.

Why would the DOJ-NSD not be forthcoming with the FISA court about the primary sub-source?  This level of disingenuous withholding of information speaks to an institutional motive.

By July 2018 the DOJ clearly knew the dossier was full of fabrications, yet they withheld that information from the court and said the predicate was still valid.  Why?

It doesn’t take a deep-weeds-walker to identify the DOJ motive.

In July 2018 Robert Mueller’s investigation was at its apex.

This letter justifying the application and claiming the current information would still be a valid predicate therein, speaks to the 2018 DOJ needing to retain the validity of the FISA warrant…. My research suspicion is that the DOJ needed to protect evidence Mueller had already extracted from the fraudulent FISA authority.  That’s the motive.

In July 2018 if the DOJ-NSD had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a result of its exploitation.  The DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller’s poisoned fruit.

If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there’s a strong possibility some, perhaps much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated… and cases were pending.  The solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.

This is not simply a hunch, because that motive also speaks to why the FISC would order the current DOJ to release the letter.

Remember, in December the FISC received the IG Horowitz report; and they would have immediately noted the disparity between what IG Horowitz outlined about the FBI investigating Steele’s sub-source, as contrast against what the DOJ told them in July 2018.

The DOJ letter is a transparent misrepresentation when compared to the information in the Horowitz report. Hence, the court orders the DOJ to release the July letter so that everyone, including congressional oversight and the public can see the misrepresentation.

The court was misled; now everyone can see it.

The content of that DOJ-NSD letter, and the subsequent disparity, points to an institutional decision in 2018; and as a consequence the FISC ordered the DOJ to begin an immediate sequestration effort in January 2020 to find all the evidence from the fraudulent FISA application.  The proverbial fruit from the poisonous tree…. And yes, that is ongoing.

Thus ample reason for Attorney General Bill Barr to reevaluate any confidence in FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Two more big misstatements within the July 2018 letter appear on page #9.  The first is the DOJ claiming that only after the application was filed did they become aware of Christopher Steele working for Fusion-GPS and knowing his intent was to create opposition research for the Hillary Clinton campaign.  See the top of the page.

According to the DOJ-NSD claim the number four ranking official in the DOJ, Bruce Ohr, never told them he was acting as a conduit for Christopher Steele to the FBI.   While that claim is hard to believe, in essence what the DOJ-NSD is saying in that paragraph is that the FBI hoodwinked the DOJ-NSD by not telling them where the information for the FISA application was coming from.  The DOJ, via John Demers, is blaming the FBI.

The second statement, equally as incredulous, is at the bottom of page nine where the DOJ claims they had no idea Bruce Ohr was talking to the FBI throughout the entire time any of the FISA applications were being submitted.  October 2016 through June 2017.

In essence the claim there is that Bruce Ohr was working with the FBI and never told anyone in the DOJ throughout 2016 and all the way past June 29th of 2017.  That denial seems rather unlikely; however, once again the DOJ-NSD is putting the FBI in the crosshairs and claiming they knew nothing about the information pipeline.

Bruce Ohr, whose wife was working for Fusion-GPS and assisting Christopher Steele with information, was interviewed by the FBI over a dozen times as he communicated with Steele and fed his information to the FBI.  Yet the DOJ claims they knew nothing about it.

Again, just keep in mind this claim by the DOJ-NSD is being made in July 2018, six months after Bruce Ohr was demoted twice (December 2017 and January 2018).  If what the DOJ is saying is true, well, the FBI was completely off-the-rails and rogue.

Neither option speaks well about the integrity of either institution; and quite frankly I don’t buy the DOJ-NSD spin.  Why?  The reason is simple, the DOJ is claiming in the letter the predication was still valid… if the DOJ-NSD genuinely didn’t know about the FBI manipulation, they would be informing the court in 2018 the DOJ no longer supported the FISA application due to new information.  They did not do that.  Instead, in July 2018, they specifically told the court the predicate was valid, yet the DOJ-NSD knew it was not.

The last point about the July 2018 letter is perhaps the most jarring.  Again, keep in mind when it was written Chris Wray is FBI Director, David Bowditch is Deputy and Dana Boente is FBI chief legal counsel.

Their own FBI reports, by three different INSD and IG investigations; had turned up seriously alarming evidence going back to the early 2017 time-frame; the results of which ultimately led to the DC FBI office losing all of their top officials; and knowing the letter itself was full of misleading and false information about FBI knowledge in/around Christopher Steele; this particular sentence is alarming:

“The FBI has reviewed this letter and confirmed its factual accuracy?”

Really?

As we have just shared, the July 2018 letter itself is filled with factual inaccuracies, misstatements and intentional omissions.  So who exactly did the “reviewing”?

This declassification release raised more questions than any other in recent memory.

As we said at the time of the release, perhaps AG Bill Barr will now start asking some rather hard questions to FBI Director Christopher Wray.

DEFIANCE – There are More of Us Than Them…


In April something was bugging me… a familiarity amid the COVID lock-down status & another time… I couldn’t quite put my finger on it until a dear friend reminded me.

Many U.S. states are acting like the early 1980’s and the imposition of Martial law in Poland to target the Solidarity movement.  Subsequently I wrote about it on a Twitter thread, because the parallels were really quite remarkable.

Both Poland circa 1980 and the U.S. friction in 2020, center around fragile economic issues. Both were an outcome of state control; and the key connection is government targeting control over the workers.

In both examples the state took exclusive control of the economic and social state of the citizens, and the courts provided no option for redress. In both examples the state locked down the citizens and would not permit them to interact with each other.

In 1981 the government in Poland initiated Martial Law and citizens were forced to communicate underground. In 2020 a considerable number of U.S. state governments locked-down citizens in similar fashion and banned citizen assembly.

In 1981 in Poland the communist regime used economic psychological pressure, selecting workers permitted to earn wages. Those workers identified as “essential” to the state. In 2020 many State governors selected workers to earn an income by designating them “essential” to the state.

In 1981 in Poland; communication amid the Solidarity Movement was forced underground. In 2020 many oppressive State governors demanded social media remove public content adverse to the interests of the Stay-at-Home confinement orders. Big Tech complied with the authoritarian dictate.

In 1981 Polish authorities arrested anyone organizing protests against the authoritarian state. In 2020 numerous authoritarian officials arrested citizens for non-compliance with unilateral dictates. From a New Jersey governor arresting a woman for organizing a protect; to an Idaho mother arrested for allowing her children to play at a park; to a Texas salon owner arrested for operating her business.

In 1981 Polish authorities had a program for citizens to report subversive activity against the state. Snitching. In 2020 New York City, LA and numerous state and local officials started programs for citizens to report non-compliant activity against the state. Similar snitching.

In both 1981 Poland and 2020 USA we also see media exclusively creating ideological content as propaganda for the interests of the authoritarian state (controlling citizens).

Interestingly, as we begin to see the American people saying “enough”, and openly defying the authoritarian state. There’s another parallel that is comparable, enlightening and quite remarkable.

Just before the authoritarian state in Poland collapsed there was a rapid movement for the citizens to take to the streets in defiance of state control. I remember watching with great enthusiasm as I saw a very determined pole shout on television:

…”we take to the streets and today we realize, there are more of us than them”…

Fast forward more than thirty years later and those glorious voices are prescient. The power of the government comes from the people; or as we say in the U.S. “from the consent of the governed.” Thus the underlying principle behind our defiance.

If the people will lead, the politicians are forced to follow:

If one person refuses to comply, government can and as we have witnessed arrest them. However, if tens of thousands rebuke these unconstitutional decrees, there isn’t a damn thing government can do to stop it…. and they know it.

If one barber shop opens, the owner becomes a target.  However, if every barber shop and beauty salon in town opens… there is absolutely nothing the government can do about it.

If one restaurant and/or bar opens, the state can target the owner.  But if every bar and restaurant in town opens; and if everyone ignores  and dispatches the silly dictates of the local, regional or state officials… there isn’t a damned thing they can do about it.

The power of the local, regional or state authority comes from the expressed consent of the people.  As soon as the majority of people deny that consent, those officials and state authoritarians lose all of their power.  Yes, it really is that simple.

Go live your best life.

You’re worth it.

PS. Another similarity – ultimately the key control issue, the heart of the battle in Poland, came down to an election finally held in 1989.  Likewise the key control issue, the heart of battle in the United States will come down to an election in November 2020.

Sunday Talks: Peter Navarro -vs- George Stephanopoulos…


The American electorate are wide-eyed and well aware of how President Obama and Vice-President Biden were co-enablers to Chinese duplicity on a wide range of aspects including theft of U.S. intellectual property, economic espionage and exfiltration of U.S. wealth.

Against that backdrop; and understanding the political risk inherent within the policy of the former administration; ABC News’ George Stephopoulos enters with his rehearsed narrative to cloud the truth.  However, White House China-hawk and policy advisor Peter Navarro easily and righteously smacks down the Biden/Obama political defenses fabricated by a combative Stephanopoulos with the atomic sledgehammer of truth.

When Stephanopoulos tries to use the Rick Bright whistle-blower narrative; Navarro squished Stephanopoulos into a puddle of political mush…

Sunday Talks: President Trump Discusses China’s Cover-Up of Wuhan Virus – The Economic Consequences Will Now Increase…


A visibly angered President Trump told Maria Bartiromo he “doesn’t want to talk to China right now” and expresses a more open opinion that we should just decouple from all economic attachment to China.  This is a seismic shift in tone toward Beijing.

All administration policy and economic influence is now targeted to remove Chinese manufacturing from the U.S. supply chain. President Trump and white house officials openly discussing a U.S. effort to decouple from China is a significant shift.

.

President Trump has been creating a dual position for several years; this is very unique because it is the same strategy used by China.  By expressing a panda face, yet concealing the underlying dragon, President Trump’s policy to China is a mirror of themselves.

Historic Chinese geopolitical policy, vis-a-vis their totalitarian control over political sentiment (action) and diplomacy through silence, is evident in the strategic use of the space between carefully chosen words, not just the words themselves.

Each time China takes aggressive action (red dragon) China projects a panda face through silence and non-response to opinion of that action;…. and the action continues. The red dragon has a tendency to say one necessary thing publicly, while manipulating another necessary thing privately.  The Art of War.

President Trump is the first U.S. President to understand how the red dragon hides behind the panda mask.

First he got their attention with tariffs.  Then… On one hand President Trump has engaged in very public and friendly trade negotiations with China (panda approach); yet on the other hand, long before the Wuhan virus, Trump fractured their global supply chains, influenced the movement of industrial goods to alternate nations, and incentivized an exodus of manufacturing (dragon result).

It is specifically because he understands that Panda is a mask that President Trump messages warmth toward the Chinese people, and pours vociferous praise upon Xi Jinping, while simultaneously confronting the geopolitical doctrine of the Xi regime.

In essence Trump has mirrored the behavior of China while confronting their economic duplicity.

There is no doubt in my mind that President Trump has a very well thought out long-term strategy regarding China. In the background of his action there has always been a duality in position; in my opinion Trump was always preparing to fully disconnect from China.

As part of the careful withdrawal President Trump used strategic messaging toward the people of china very importantly.  Trump has, very publicly, complimented the friendship he feels toward President Xi Jinping; and praised Chairman Xi for his character, strength and purposeful leadership.

To build upon that projected and strategic message – President Trump seeded the background by appointing Ambassador Terry Branstad, a 30-year personal friend of President Xi Jinping.

To enhance and amplify the message – and broadcast cultural respect – President Trump used Mar-a-Lago as the venue for their first visit, not the White House.  And President Trump’s beautiful granddaughter, Arabella, sweetly serenaded the Chinese First Familytwice in Mandarin Chinese song showing the utmost respect for the guests and later for the hosts.

All of this activity mirrors the duplicity of China.  However, from the November 2017 tour of Asia to the January 2020 China phase-1 trade deal, President Trump has been positioning, for an economic decoupling and a complete realignment of global trade and manufacturing.

After years of careful positioning while unwinding the economic dependency; and while warning U.S. multinationals to prepare themselves financially for a significant shift in position toward China; President Trump has now fully triggered the decoupling phase.

COVID-19 is the perfect global justification needed for the financial markets to remain stable and understand what comes next…

White House Manufacturing Policy Advisor Peter Navarro and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer will be the two primary enforcement officials.

BLOOMBERG –  Five months and a global pandemic later, Lighthizer isn’t using words like integrated anymore about China. In an opinion piece in the New York Times late Monday, he casts new doubt about whether such economic symbiosis is actually the end the Trump administration is now seeking.

In the article, China isn’’t his only villain. The USTR likened the American capitalists who sought cheaper ways of production in places like China, Vietnam and Indonesia to a mass migration of rodents. Over the past few decades, those who weren’t egged on by Wall Street analysts and management consultants were “simply swept up by the herd mentality of their peers” — all to benefit shareholders rather than workers, he said.

“The era of reflexive offshoring is over, and with it the old overzealous emphasis on efficiency and the concomitant lack of concern for the jobs that were lost,” Lighthizer wrote. “After we have defeated this disease and reopened our economy, we cannot forget the hard lessons learned from this misguided experiment.”

What Lighthizer says matters, of course, because he’s the top trade policy voice in a Trump administration where some officials want to leverage the outbreak to go harder on China.

But perhaps even more important is the timing of Lighthizer’s pronouncement. His boss is unhappy with China for the damage the coronavirus is causing to the U.S. economy. (read more)