Posted originally on the CTH on August 9, 2023 | Sundance
Most close watchers already knew the motive and intention of the J6 committee was to build narratives useful against their political opposition and the 2022 midterm election cycle. Factually, the makeup of the J6 committee was specifically structured for this intention.
That said, this remarkable statement by former J6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson is essentially admitting the committee destroyed evidence that undermined their preconceived notions.
After being questioned by republicans about the absence of evidence provided to the committee, former Chairman Bennie Thomson says:
…”Consistent with guidance from the Office of the Clerk and other authorities, the Select Committee did not archive temporary committee records that were not elevated by the Committee’s actions, such as use in hearings or official publications, or those that did not further its investigative activities. Accordingly, and contrary to your letter’s implication, the Select Committee was not obligated to archive all video recordings of transcribed interviews or depositions.
Based on guidance from House authorities, the Select Committee determined that the written transcripts provided by nonpartisan, professional official reporters, which the witnesses and Select Committee staff had the opportunity to review for errata, were the official, permanent records of transcribed interviews and depositions for the purposes of rule VII.”… (READ MORE)
“Guidance from House authorities” is political code speak for House counsel.
Who do you think was counsel for the House J6 Committee?
One of the key House J6 counselors, giving advice to destroy evidence that ran against their narrative, was at the epicenter of all Trump targeting while in office.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
President Trump attorney John Lauro continues running the gauntlet against the narrative engineers with this interview on NBC’s Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.
An intellectually deficient Todd attempts to justify the Biden administration targeting of Donald Trump and is countered by John Lauro. WATCH:
.
During the CNN interview below, it was very important to narrative engineer Dana Bash to assert that Joe Biden has nothing to do with the decisions of the DOJ, which is a rather remarkable position considering the same Dana Bash has been asserting for the previous four years that Donald Trump controlled decisions of the DOJ.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance
President Trump attorney John Lauro appears on Face the Nation with Major Garrett to discuss and debate the Biden administration’s criminal prosecution of President Trump for contesting the results of the 2020 election. Toward that latter part of the interview, Garrett needs to enhance his leftist bona fides with a strawman argument about the 2016 election outcome. Lauro handles Garrett’s narrative engineering very well. [Video and Transcript Below] WATCH:
MAJOR GARRETT: We go now to John Lauro, one of former President Trump’s lawyers. He joins us now from New York. John, good morning to you. I want to let you know that we spoke with former Vice President–
JOHN LAURO: –Good morning
MAJOR GARRETT: –Mike Pence and asked him specifically about your assertions made this last week that all the President did was asked him to pause the certification on January 6, 2021. He told me flatly, quote, “That’s not what happened.” Your response?
LAURO: That’s not- that’s not what I said, though, but that’s okay.
MAJOR GARRETT: What- what is it that you believe happened between the President and the Vice President? And do you have any fear of the Vice President being called as a witness in the case?
LAURO: No, in fact, the Vice President will be our best witness. What I said is the ultimate ask of Vice President Pence was to pause the count and allow the states to weigh in. That was my statement, and what- what I’ve said is consistent with what Vice President Pence is saying. The reason why Vice President Pence will be so important to the defense is the following, number one. Number two, he agrees that there were election irregularities, fraud, unlawful actions at the state level, all of that will- will eviscerate any allegation of criminal intent on the part of President Trump. And finally, what Vice President Pence believes and believed is that these issues needed to be debated on January 6. He openly called for all of these issues to be debated and objected to in the January 6 proceeding. President Trump, on the other hand, believed following the advice of John Eastman, who’s the legal scholar, that these issues needed to be debated at the state level, not the federal level. Now, of course, there was a constitutional disagreement between Vice President Pence and President Trump, but the bottom line is never- never in our country’s history has those kinds of disagreements been prosecuted criminally. It’s- It’s unheard of.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, can I ask you a couple of very simple basic yes or no questions? Is there- first, is there any condition under which the former president of the United States, your client, would accept a plea deal on these January 6 charges?
LAURO: No.
MAJOR GARRETT: Will you seek a motion to dismiss?
LAURO: Absolutely, 100 percent.
MAJOR GARRETT: When?
LAURO: Hundred percent. Well, within the time permitted. This is what’s called a Swiss cheese indictment. It has so many holes that we’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of- of motions that we’re going to file on First Amendment grounds, on the fact that President Trump is immune as president from- from being prosecuted in this way.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you-do you have a ballpark figure of when you’ll be ready for trial?
LAURO: Well, I can tell you that in 40 years of practicing law, on a case of this magnitude, I’ve not known a single case to go to trial before two or three years.
MAJOR GARRETT: Understood. Are you still going to pursue a change of venue?
LAURO: Absolutely, we would like a diverse venue, a diverse jury.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you have an expectation that will be granted?
LAURO: That reflects the- the- the characteristics of the American people. It’s up to the judge. I think West Virginia would be an excellent venue to try this case–
MAJOR GARRETT: — Speaking of the judge
LAURO: — very close to D.C. and a much more diverse–
MAJOR GARRETT: — Understood. Speaking of the judge’ earlier this week, your client, the former president, on his social media platform, said ‘The judge is unfair’, On what basis did he say that?
LAURO: Well, the problem with bringing a case like this in the middle of a campaign season, is statements are going to be made in the context of a campaign. We expect a fair and just trial in the District of Columbia. And- and my role- my role is simply to ensure that President Trump’s rights, just like every American’s rights, are protected every step of the way, and I’m going to do that.
MAJOR GARRETT: You mentioned discovery. In the protective order back and forth between you and the prosecutors, it says, the prosecution, that discovery will be provided, quote, ‘As soon as possible, including certain discovery to which the defendant is not entitled’. What’s wrong with that?
LAURO: We’re all in favor of protecting sensitive and highly sensitive information. But it’s unprecedented to have all information hidden in a criminal case, including, by the way, information that might be exculpatory and might be exonerative of President Trump. The Biden administration wants to keep that information from the American people.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, in the back and forth on this matter, you also said in the filing to the court that the former president would be willing to come to an agreement on this matter. And what I want to ask you is would that requirement be something where the President would agree not to release any information that was highly sensitive in this matter and would he also refrain from any speech that called for or hinted at retribution about anyone associated with the prosecution of this case?
LAURO: He’s never called for that at all. He’s going to abide by the conditions of his release. But of course, we would agree that any sensitive or highly sensitive information be kept under wraps. In fact, we made that proposition to the Biden administration, but they rejected it. They want every single piece of evidence in this case hidden from the American public.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, before I let you go, do you remember what you were doing the early morning of November 9th, 2016?
LAURO: I have no idea.
MAJOR GARRETT: Well, I remember what I was doing. I was covering President-elect Trump announcing that he had won the presidency, about 3 a.m. that morning after the November 8th election. My question to you, John, is how did he know he won?
LAURO: Well, politicians are convinced in the righteousness of their cause, including President Trump, and he certainly believed that he won and he did win in 2016- (crosstalk)
MAJOR GARRETT: — But on what basis did he know he- But on what basis did he know he won?
LAURO: — Can I finish? Can I finish?
MAJOR GARRETT: — Yeah. Sure.
LAURO: — Can I finish? And he believed in 2020 that he won based on the fact that he had 10 million more votes than in 2016. He had a situation where, somehow, President Biden, or at that time candidate Biden, received 15 million more votes than Hillary Clinton. And he also understood in 2020, that president- that President Trump understood that he had won all- virtually all of the bellwether counties, and 84 percent of all the counties in the country-
MAJOR GARRETT: Right. John- John, let me- let me help you with this–
LAURO: — So on that basis he believed that he was successful.
MAJOR GARRETT: — John, let me help you with this, I wasn’t asking about 2020.
LAURO: — No, let me help you with this, because the issue here- I have to help you with this.
[crosstalk]
MAJOR GARRETT: I wasn’t asking about 2020, John. John, I wasn’t asking about 2020. I was asking about 2016.
(CROSSTALK)
LAURO: The issue. Right. The issue. Right. The issue in a criminal case-
MAJOR GARRETT: Because- because the votes were still being counted in 2016. The votes were still being counted in 2016. There had been no recounts. How did he know in 2016 that he had won? How did he know? On what basis?
LAURO: The issue- the issue- let me just tell you something, the issue in this criminal case is not what happened in 2016 and whether all candidates say they won. The issue now is, in 2020, whether or not the Justice Department can weaponize criminal law to go after a political opponent and prevent that opponent from running for office. That’s the issue, not what happened in 2016.
MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time.
LAURO: Do you think it’s fair- do you think it’s fair that- do you think it’s fair what the- what the Biden administration is doing to a candidate for president?
MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time. We appreciate it.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 5, 2023 | Sundance
Bill Barr enjoys talking about the weaponized DOJ as if the DOJ was not weaponized. Bill Barr is a very dangerous figure in the government weaponization process, and he had a lot of people fooled for a long time. Fortunately, he didn’t fool me and many of you remember exactly why.
Additionally, during my 2020 trip to DC, it was specific suspicions about Bill Barr that necessitated going directly into the system. Through research and eventually a stroke of luck, I was able to trace the people Attorney General Barr assigned to review the Trump-Russia collusion nonsense. I found the people working for Durham and questioned the lead investigator. Again, I immediately told everyone there was nothing being done to confront the corrupt entities who fabricated the nonsense.
After those events I also outlined the institutional silo corruption, a process Benny Johnson recently described as “the ghost in the machine“. While Johnson has the big picture accurate, these entities are not some unnamed random institutional bureaucrats. They are people, they know exactly what they are doing, and they understand exactly how to control the mechanics. These “ghosts” are the people AG Bill Barr was/is protecting. WATCH:
“I’m not being arbitrary; I’m just not going to pretend. These people know exactly what is going on. Their action is not an outcome of some esoteric thought process. They are corrupt & acting to retain the corruption with specific intent & full understanding of the consequence.” ~Sundance
Now, let us get down to the business of understanding.
♦ SILO #1 – Inspector General Michael Horowitz was given instructions by outgoing President Barack Obama, to review the internal decision-making inside the FBI, Main Justice and DOJ-NSD as it pertained to the Hillary Clinton classified document scandal.
In early January 2017, IG Horowitz was tasked to review the FBI decisions during the Clinton exoneration and deliver a report on his findings.
First, it is important to remember the DOJ inspector general can only review internal government conduct. The IG does not review or investigate outside involvement and has no authority to compel investigative compliance from outside parties. The Office of Inspector General is an internal review agency.
Second, it is important to remember the DOJ inspector general was not authorized to conduct any oversight of the Dept of Justice National Security Division, DOJ-NSD. During the Obama era, when the DOJ-NSD was created by Attorney General Eric Holder, through the entirety of the Obama era, there was no inspector general oversight into any operations conducted by the DOJ-NSD; that included the FISA process. It was not until later in 2017 when the Trump administration granted the OIG authority to conduct oversight into the DOJ National Security Division.
Think of IG Michael Horowitz as an investigative silo. You will see why this matters.
♦ SILO #2 – Robert Mueller (truthfully Andrew Weissmann) was appointed in May of 2017 by Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, as Special Counsel to investigate Trump-Russia and the reports of prior Russian influence in the 2016 election. Robert Muller was a figurehead, a person in name only to give credibility to the purpose and intent of the group who assembled under his shingle. Andrew Weissmann was the actual manager of the investigation, events and details of the Mueller probe.
On the outward face, in the aftermath of FBI Director James Comey being fired, the Mueller investigation was created to look at Russian interference in the 2016 election – against the background that Comey’s firing by President Trump was related to an intent to impede the ongoing Crossfire Hurricane investigation. However, on the internal dynamic, inside the mechanics of how DC silos are created, the Mueller probe existed to hide the DOJ and FBI weaponization of government that was deployed under the justification of the FBI Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Sometime around June of 2017, while conducting his review of the FBI conduct in the Clinton investigation, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered troubling internal communications between FBI agent Peter Strzok and DOJ-NSD assigned lawyer to the FBI, Lisa Page. Silo #1 now intersects Silo #2.
Lisa Page was the DOJ lawyer advising FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Peter Strzok was the lead FBI counterintelligence agent working on the Clinton email investigation. Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe were the core of the Clinton investigation and intrinsically linked to the Clinton exoneration as announced by FBI Director James Comey.
IG Horowitz knew of the Clinton investigation and was investigating the details therein. Horowitz did not initially know about the Crossfire Hurricane investigation which, by June of 2017, had subsequently morphed into the Special Counsel Mueller investigation.
Horowitz’s 2017 task only pertained to the Clinton classified documents and decision-making. However, it was the exact same FBI and DOJ people who investigated then exonerated Hillary Clinton, who then opened an investigation of Trump, who then transferred into an expanded Robert Mueller probe.
Horowitz (Silo 1) was bound by requirements of his office to inform Robert Mueller that individuals inside his investigation (Silo 2) were under investigation.
This presented a problem for Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann who were conducting a coverup and targeting operation.
Essentially, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were a threat, as they were bringing an IG review into the security of the Mueller Silo. Almost immediately, Strzok and Page were removed by Mueller/Weissmann to purge the problematic window they represented.
Mueller and Weismann then continued their operation, absorbing any Main Justice information that had anything to do with Trump-Russia. Simultaneous to their unilateral empowerment, Weissmann and Mueller continued to fabricate a false premise of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This ‘Russia narrative’ was supported as the justification for their continued operation throughout 2017, 2018 and into 2019.
It is important to remember that Mueller/Weissmann had full control over everything that had anything to do with the Russian interference narrative or the Trump-Russia narrative. Any ancillary investigation from any government office that touched on these issues was subsequently absorbed by Weissmann and team.
As an example, this Weissmann/Mueller absorption and control included the FBI case against SSCI Security Director James Wolfe, the man who leaked the Title-1 surveillance warrant (FISA application) deployed by the Crossfire Hurricane team against Carter Page. The Wolfe investigation (April ’17 through January ’18) was conducted by FBI Washington Field Office agent Brian Dugan. James Wolfe was indicted by USAO Jessie Liu for leaking the FISA application to journalist Ali Watkins. However, the evidence file was reviewed by the special counsel, and after threats by the defense team to subpoena Senate Intelligence Committee members, the specific charge of leaking the FISA was dropped from the criminal case.
Because Weissmann/Mueller controlled everything that touched the Trump-Russia issues, in June of 2018 when the Carter Page FISA application was made public, it came from the Weissmann/Mueller team release. This was one of the lesser discussed revelations from the Rod Rosenstein June 2020 testimony about the Mueller probe.
♦ SILO #3 – After taking office in February of 2019, Attorney General Bill Barr received the Mueller report in March and a debate with Mueller/Weissmann about the content and report release began. In May 2019, AG Barr appointed Special Counsel John Durham to review the FBI operations that initiated the Trump-Russia probe.
It is important to note that John Durham was appointed *after* Bill Barr received the Mueller report from Andrew Weissmann. It is also important to note that despite the originating mandate of Weissmann/Mueller being predicated on their obligation to look into the accusations of Trump-Russia, the Clinton campaign organization of the Trump-Russia narrative does not appear in the Mueller report.
There is nothing about Clinton’s work with the Perkins Coie law firm and lawyer Michael Sussmann to work as a cut-out for the Clinton campaign contacts with Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, Glenn Simpson, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr or any other substantively manufactured system that was used to create the illusion of the Trump-Russia connections. The absence of that information inside the Mueller report begged the obvious question:
How could Mueller investigate Trump-Russia for two years and never find the origin of Trump-Russia?
After realizing the Mueller report contained none of this information, in May of 2019 Bill Barr appointed John Durham and Silo #3 was created.
Each of the silos, purposefully created by those who operate within the DC systems of political power, were created to have specific usefulness and function. This is how the system operates.
We hear things like “ongoing investigation” as sunlight blocks, or “potential interfering with an investigation” as another technique. Each time a silo is created, the purpose of the silo is to control information and isolate the larger system from scrutiny.
When Robert Mueller (silo 2) appeared before a congressional committee in June 2019 to answer questions about his report, he was asked about the origination of Trump-Russia. Mueller’s jaw-dropping response was, “That was not in my purview.”
Wait, how can your existence be predicated on investigating Trump-Russia, and yet the origin of Trump-Russia is not in your “purview”? See the problem.
Unfortunately, and not accidentally, Robert Mueller was able to avoid scrutiny of never having investigated the origin of Trump-Russia because there was another silo, John Durham (silo 3), to take the heat off him. Each silo is sequentially created to deflect and distract from questioning that surrounds the originating corruption. Attorney General Bill Barr created Silo #3 (Durham), for exactly this reason. Bill Barr was the Bondo, John Durham the spray paint.
John Durham finishes up Silo-3 operations, delivers a report, and now we have a Silo #4 in operation via the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
As you can see, each silo creates an internal defense system which also allows media to deflect, ignore and distract. However, in the Trump-Russia story you will note there is a flow to how the silos are sequenced. The silos are designed to absorb information, deflect sunlight and keep accountability away. The silos are constructs, preservation systems, for the DC administrative state.
Ultimately, each silo is created to stop people from seeing the larger picture – the unlawful targeting of a presidential candidate, and then a subsequent coup against that candidate after the election. The evidence of the weaponized government is in the full story that resides, compartmented, inside purposefully constructed containment silos; each intended to block sunlight upon specific components of the evidence.
Posted originally on the CTH on July 7, 2023 | Sundance | 79 Comments
In a previous ruling in the case of The State of Missouri v Joe Biden, Judge Terry Doughty agreed with the state position that evidence had clearly shown agencies of the U.S. government had infringed upon First Amendment free speech in targeting social media companies with demands for content removal. [Ruling and Injunction pdf]
The social media companies outlined in the state lawsuit include Facebook, Instagram, Meta Platforms Inc, Twitter, Google and YouTube. Evidence provided by the states showed clear and convincing evidence the government was unlawfully monitoring social media and telling the platforms to remove content adverse to their interests.
The judge outlined an emergency injunction barring government agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI from talking to social media companies for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech” under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling provided narrow exceptions.
Obviously, given the scale of government involved censorship of speech within social media, the injunction was a major loss to the Biden regime, who operate -in part- with the benefit of controlling public opinion and information. The judicial ruling disrupts the ability of the Biden administration to censor the online speech of Americans.
As a result of the injunction, the DOJ is now asking Judge Doughty to stay or pause his injunction while the government files a full appeal to the 5th circuit court of appeals.
(Reuters) – The Biden administration on Thursday asked a federal judge to put on hold his earlier order barring some government agencies and officials from meeting and communicating with social media companies about moderating their content.
In a filing before U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Monroe, Louisiana, the administration said the judge’s Tuesday ruling was “both sweeping in scope and vague in its terms,” and likely to be overturned on appeal.
The administration appealed the order to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. If Doughty refuses to pause his own order, the administration will likely ask the 5th Circuit to do so instead while it considers the appeal.
Doughty’s order came in a lawsuit brought by Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri and by several individuals. They alleged that U.S. government officials effectively coerced social media companies to censor posts over concerns they would fuel vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic or upend elections. (read more)
QUESTION: There has been talk that Trudeau will use the fires to claim a climate crisis, and that will justify lockdowns again. Is there any truth to these rumors?
FS
ANSWER: There is definitely the idea of using climate change to justify lockdowns. However, this is really not for climate change but for crowd control. They are well aware of the rising discontent civilly, which historically produces revolution. They are pushing for world war III for two reasons.
First, it will be the excuse to default on all sovereign debt as they are also attracted to the Schwab-Soros solution of a one-world government. If that is the case, then all previous sovereign debt will be null and void. The United States did that with the debt of the Continental Congress when they created the United States. That’s why you can collect the revolutionary currency that was never honored.
Secondly, they fear revolution is in the wind. In order to prevent that from taking place, they need to restrict all travel, censor social media, and lock us down using climate change as the excuse.
You may not know it, but at the Paris climate summit, they REFUSED to allow anyone to testify who disputed their agenda. That was the start of this Cancel Culture. The Guardian published the truth, perhaps ahead of schedule. There are those pushing for lockdowns every two years to meet the Paris requirement of ZERO CO2. Everyone’s future is to change, and they never ONCE allowed anyone to ever vote on this agenda. These people understand that civil unrest is on the rise. They desperately need a diversion. Russia is providing that for now.
Video
Will people support this war against Russia and draft people to go to Ukraine? Will that be the turning point? Are you willing to send your children or yourself to fight for Ukraine over the Donbas, which is the home to Russians, not Ukrainians, for hundreds of years when it does not impact our lives? They know there will be resistance. If it is too great, you will suddenly see the need for climate change lockdowns.
Posted originally on the CTH on July 4, 2023 | Sundance
As we gather with family and friends for this Independence Day celebration, we remind ourselves that freedom is a valuable and precious gift worth fighting for.
There are many current anxieties, frustrations and feelings of despondency as our July 4th, 2023 celebrations take place. However, we would be well served to remember that we alone control our responses to events around us.
We can choose to put aside all of the challenges and issues that seem beyond our control, and we can gather in joyful fellowship with our family and friends to celebrate the reason our forefathers defeated tyranny.
We Americans come from solid stock.
We carry in our DNA a fortitude of individual identity that is not dependent on government for affirmation or permission. We are the beneficiaries of those who believed in stubborn independence. What takes place at your picnic, gathering or assembly of fellowship is your independent choice.
I am an American. I was conceived at Plymouth, born in Lexington and Concord, and reached maturity at Philadelphia.
I went through the fires of Shiloh, Gualdacanal, the Chosin Resovoir, Khe Sanh and a thousand other battlefields, and emerged rededicated to the ideals on which America was founded.
I am an American. Ever ready to defend my liberty and independence, to make any sacrifice and bear any burden – still, I seek no quarrel.
I march to the sound of the guns out of necessity alone. I fight not for glory or territory, or to make others bend to my will, but to vindicate my rights and preserve my freedom.
I am an American. I’m proud of my past. Words like Valley Forge, Gettysburg Address and Pearl Harbor — names like Washington, Jackson, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt — make my blood stir.
Glancing behind me, I see generations of men and women who labored and struggled, lived and died to let me stand where I am today — who cleared the land, planted the crops, built the factories, raised the cities and made the discoveries that created a civilization which all the silent, suffering ranks of slaves, serfs and subjects who came before them could never imagine.
I am an American. While recognizing the errors that were made in nation-building (has a nation ever been built exclusively on light?), I proclaim America’s past glorious indeed, a boon to humanity, and consider myself among the blessed of the earth to share this nation’s destiny.
I am an American. Liberty is my birthright. To speak my mind, choose my leaders and legislators, defend my home and family, and worship the Creator in my fashion — these are not privileges, but G od-given rights. Governments can respect or deny them; they cannot change them.
I am an American. I have no rulers. Those who make, interpret and enforce our laws are servants. When they no longer recognize that verity, their authority loses legitimacy.
I am an American. My rights are a sacred trust to be exercised in the cause of justice and virtue. They are not the playthings of a spoiled child or mechanisms of self-indulgence.
I am an American. English is my language. Our ancestors arrived on these shores speaking everything from Chinese to Yiddish. It was English that united us, that allowed us to overcome age-old antagonisms.
From the Mayflower Compact to the latest piece of legislation introduced in Congress, our history and heritage are written in the tongue of the Magna Carta and the King James Bible.
I am an American. I have no distinctive race, religion or ethnicity. I am black, white, yellow, brown and red — Catholic, Protestant, Jew and Hindu. I came here from the hamlets of Old England, the bogs of Ireland, Napoli’s sunny shore, the Pale of Settlement and the villages of Vietnam. American isn’t a color or creed, but a state of mind.
I am an American. I welcome immigrants who are here to work and build, who identify with our past and ideals, who were spiritual Americans before they landed. Broken English is fine, as long as faith remains unbroken. An American speaks with the heart as much as the lips.
I am an American. My ism is Americanism. I reject all dogmas and ideologies. Collectivism, racism, militarism and imperialism have no place here. The rot that’s eaten away at the soul of so many nations and cultures must be fiercely resisted.
I am an American. I recognize only one loyalty higher than allegiance to our flag — faith in God. I acknowledge that America and God, the physical and the spiritual, are inseparable. America was founded by people of faith and grew to greatness by His grace. I pray that we will always be the instruments of His will.
I am an American. I weep over the fact that American history is no longer taught in our schools. In its place is a worldly, cynical skepticism inculcated by authors and educators at war with our basic values.
I am an American. I cringe at the collection of connivers, cowards, clowns and quacks that passes for our political leadership. I wonder that so many of my compatriots have no idea what America means and show no gratitude for the blessings that are theirs.
I am an American. My ranks grow thin; the night closes in. Whether I will be the last of my kind or the vanguard of their resurgence, only time will tell.”
What the hell is the US government doing with our tax dollars? We just heard that the Pentagon managed to misplace $600 billion in funds to Ukraine. They simply have no idea where $600 billion wandered off to and are not investigating. Now, a watchdog group revealed that over $200 billion in COVID-19 relief funds also went M.I.A.
We already knew paycheck protection funding was widely abused. But an inspector general from the US Small Business Administration now believes AT LEAST 17% of all COVID-EIDL and PPP funds were “disbursed to fraudulent actors.” Fraud estimates for COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loans reached $136 billion, or 33% of the entire program. Then it is estimated that an additional $64 billion was stolen from Paycheck Protection Fraud.
Government agents deny mass fraud. They say that the recent report “contains serious flaws that significantly overestimate fraud and unintentionally mislead the public to believe that the work we did together had no significant impact in protecting against fraud.” The problem here is that this is the money of the American people. In less than two weeks, the US government just announced they lost nearly a trillion due to bad actors and/or accounting errors. We deserve a complete overhaul of government accounting and a thorough investigation into where these funds went. Chalking it up to an accounting error or being duped is not sufficient. They need to tell the people exactly how they are spending our money, especially since they continually ask for more each year while providing nothing in return.
Posted originally on the CTH on June 21, 2023 | Sundance
Congressman Adam Schiff was the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 2015 through 2019, then Chairman of that same committee from 2019 through 2023. In his leadership position on the HPSCI, Schiff was also a member of the congressional Gang of Eight who received classified intelligence briefings on all U.S. intel matters.
Adam Schiff used his position on the HPSCI to fabricate information from the HPSCI, leak information to media, and falsify statements during public appearances. Following the 2020 midterm election result, Schiff was forcibly removed from the committee by Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Today the House of Representatives censured Schiff for his lies and manipulative conduct and submitted him to an ethics investigation by the House.
(Via Politico) – The House GOP voted Wednesday to publicly reprimand Rep. Adam Schiff for his leading role in Democratic investigations of former President Donald Trump.
The measure, which passed 213-209, formally censures Schiff and directs the House Ethics Committee to investigate his actions. All five Republican members of the House ethics panel and Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) voted “present” on Wednesday’s measure.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), the sponsor of the resolution, and other conservatives tried to advance a similar censure measure last week, but 20 Republicans — objecting to language that could have resulted in a $16 million fine for Schiff, unless he resigned from Congress — joined most Democrats to sink it before it came up for a full House vote. Luna removed that provision to allay their concerns. (read more)
Posted originally on the CTH on June 21, 2023 | Sundance
Representative Andy Biggs and Representative Matt Gaetz both confronted John Durham about his role in covering for a politically corrupt and weaponized Dept of Justice and FBI.
Matt Gaetz specifically confronts Durham over his lack of holding people accountable. The confrontation between Matt Gaetz and John Durham should have been the tone of the entire hearing. WATCH:
You can like or dislike the approach by Matt Gaetz, personally I appreciate it, but what Gaetz says in this confrontation is factually accurate and true.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 