Category End of Bill of Rights

Apr 23 2022

New Poll Exposes This One Key Voting Group Is Abandoning Biden | Direct Message | Rubin Report


The Rubin Report  originally posted on April 19, 2022 on Rumble

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about Joe Biden’s approval ratings collapse, Bill Maher telling Joe Rogan what might make him vote Republican, Airlines CEOs pushing back against the airline mask mandate, and Jen Psaki’s mean comment about Peter Doocy. First, Dave discusses how inflation is fueling Biden’s low approval rating as it collapses to new lows. NBC News’ Chuck Todd reveals a very bad sign for the Democratic party as Biden’s ratings have fallen the most among Gen Z. Meanwhile, Biden advisors like Dr. Ashish Jha remains focused on ensuring that the pandemic will never end. Next, Bill Maher told Joe Rogan that what might tip him over to voting Republican is the amount of political corruption and political graft. He points to the corruption of COVID spending and wonders why Build Back Better would be any different. Is Bill finally turning Republican? Next, airline CEOs like Delta’s Ed Bastian are pushing back against Biden’s flight mask mandates. Following the ruling of a U.S. district court judge on Monday, the Biden administration announced that the Transportation Security Administration will no longer enforce the federal mandate requiring masks in all U.S. airports and on board aircraft. Delta was quick to tell its employees and customers that masks are now optional for everyone on Delta flights. Finally, press secretary Jen Psaki was asked for real thoughts on Fox News’ Peter Doocy to which she gave a surprisingly mean response.

Apr 23 2022

Top Pentagon Official Resigns Over Threat of Technological Warfare


Armstrong Economics Blog/War Re-Posted Apr 22, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Chief Architect Preston Dunlap resigned from his role at the Pentagon, citing the threat of technological warfare. “The System is generally set up to pull everyone and every idea down to the status quo,” he said. “Driving changes requires defying gravity,” Dunlap stated in his recent eight-page letter. His plan of action “to fight the beast of bureaucracy” are as follows: “1) shock the system, 2) Flip the Acquisition Script, 3) Just Delivery Already, and 4) Slay the Valley of Death and Scale.”

This now former top Pentagon employee believes that the US has already lost the technological war with China, and that the nation has been too preoccupied with competing against each other rather than overseas “adversaries.” Dunlap’s ominous letter focuses on more than just his Pentagon colleagues. China’s private tech sector has surpassed that of the United States’ military. “These are accessible to anyone with resources and academics and capabilities, and so our adversaries or potential adversaries are able to have access to that technology, not only inside their own economies, but because of the benefit of our free and open society, which is a great thing,” he stated.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has long been criticized for failing to advance technologically. In the DoD’s report Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China”  from 2021, they admitted that China is aiming to become the leading “intelligentized” [sic] military in the world:

“The PRC has continued its aggressive, top-level push to master advanced technologies and become a global innovation superpower. The PRC seeks to dominate technologies associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution; this push directly supports the PLA’s ambitious modernization efforts and its goal of becoming a “world-class” military capable of “intelligentized” warfare.”

In terms of “technologies associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” this goes along with what has been indicated long ago – the next world war will not be fought with guns. China has a goal of achieving “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” by 2049, but our models indicate that may happen a few years earlier.

Apr 23 2022

US Antagonizes China with Surprise Taiwan Visit


Armstrong Economics Blog/China Re-Posted Apr 22, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Lindsey Graham is at it again. He is one of the leading Neocons who has supported the Ukrainian Neonatzis and the war against Russians. Now he pulled off a surprise visit to Taiwan playing the very same game promising US support for a war against China should they invade. This came precisely during the week of April 18th which our computer warned would be an important geopolitical event. This insanity is just beyond belief.

I have no explanation why Graham is so intent on creating World War III. He is forcing China and Russia to combine forces and our model shows that this new alliance will not be alone. Much of the Middle East will join for they see Israel and in bed with the USA and the Zelensky is playing the Jewish Hero. This has divided the Middle East and while Europe is pledging an oil embargo against Russia, my sources in the Middle East are saying they WILL NOT fill the gap for Europe.

Shanghai lockdown will have a profound impact further creating shortages that will push inflation higher. This may recall being the objective given the obstinance of the US policy toward Russia. Shanghai officials said they would lift the lockdown only in batches once virus transmission outside quarantined areas was stamped out. There is no massive wave of deaths and it could very well prove to be a new strategy to combat American sanctions.

Apr 22 2022

Fauci on Federal Mask Mandate – Laws and Courts Have No Right to Impede on CDC Science and Regulations


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 21, 2022 | Sundance

Someone might want to knock Anthony Fauci down a few pegs from his high-horse position.   In this brief video, Fauci was asked for his opinion on the recent federal court ruling that the CDC exceeded its authority with a federal transportation mask mandate.

According to Fauci, the CDC bureaucratic science should supersede any constitutional, legal or limiting positions by the legislative or judicial branches of government.  In essence he’s saying the CDC is above the law.  WATCH:

The CDC is a subservient regulatory agency just like every other agency within government and is just as subject to the laws and legal limitations of the constitution as any other agency would be.  However, in the worldview of Fauci and the Branch Covidians, the power of science puts them above the law.

In semi-related news…. “Philadelphia will end its COVID-19 indoor mask mandate less than a week after reinstating it, city health officials said Thursday night.” {LINK}

Apr 22 2022

These are the Twitter board members fighting Elon Musk’s takeover bid


Posted originally by New York Post  on Rumble on April 21, 2022

These are the Twitter board members fighting Elon Musk’s takeover bid

Apr 22 2022

Elon Musk Unveils Financial Bid for $46 Billion Deal to Purchase Twitter, Through the Board or Directly to Shareholders


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 21, 2022 | Sundance

There is still doubt if Elon Musk really does want to purchase the Twitter social media platform.  However, Musk himself seems to be putting a lot of his own credibility on the line as he announces the construct of his $46 billion purchase proposal.

It looks like Musk has created a second alternative to the purchase if the Twitter board of directors refuses the original offer.  Within the secondary construct, a tender offer, Musk would be able to bypass the board and go directly to shareholders.

(YAHOO) – Elon Musk has secured commitments for $46.5bn (£35.5bn) that would allow him to bypass Twitter’s (TWTR) board and go directly to the social media company’s shareholders with his takeover bid.

Musk said he would personally provide $21bn of equity for the deal with another $12.5bn coming from margin loans, according to paperwork filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday.

Banks, including Morgan Stanley, have agreed to provide another $13bn in debt secured against Twitter itself, according to the filing.

Musk has not yet determined if he will make a tender offer for Twitter or whether he will take other steps to further the proposal, the filing states.

Tender offers involve making a bid to purchase some or all shares of a company directly from its shareholders. (read more)

There are two ways to buy a publicly traded company. The simplest and most common is a board-approved merger. Talks start in secret, the two sides haggle and then arrive at a deal. Shareholders get to vote, and it is an all-or-nothing affair. Typically with a simple majority, the buyer walks away with the entire company. If the vote fails, the buyer goes away empty-handed.

A tender offer instead makes a direct appeal to shareholders to sell—or tender—their shares at a specific price. It can be used in friendly deals, but its real value is to hostile bidders when the target company’s board won’t engage. Tender offers simply go around them.

And they aren’t all or nothing. A buyer can bid for, say, just enough shares to cross 50%, thus seizing control. From there it could replace intransigent board members with friendlier ones, though in practice, it rarely gets that far. If a tender offer looks likely to succeed, reluctant boards tend to capitulate and negotiate a deal.

Mr. Musk would, with some regulatory paperwork, announce the offer at a specific price. The offer has to remain on the table for at least 20 days.

Those documents would lay out the number of shares he is soliciting. If Mr. Musk, who owns more than 9% of Twitter, takes a bare-bones approach, he would seek another 41% or so.

Meanwhile, Twitter would have 10 days to make its own recommendation to shareholders regarding the tender offer—in this case, presumably that it doesn’t accept it.

If not enough shares are tendered, Mr. Musk could cancel the offer or amend the terms.

The New York Post has details on the ideological opposition:

[…] “After backing out of an agreement to take a seat on the board, Musk is threatening to cut board salaries to zero, a move he says will save the company nearly $3 million a year. Each non-employee board member earned $225,000 in stock in 2021, according to Twitter’s public filings. Directors, with the exception of Dorsey and his co-founder, CEO Parang Agrawal, also received $12,500 in cash, plus extra fees, ranging from $2,500 to $7,500, for serving on various board committees.

So who are these Twitter board members fighting Musk’s hostile bid? Twitter — which has come under fire for censorship, in part for banning the New York Post’s coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop — is filled with a motley mix of tech vets, retail gurus, academics, philanthropists and former government officials.” (read more)

Do you remember that weird dynamic when President Trump was dealing with North Korea and Kim Jong-un while at the same time having to pretend publicly that Beijing (Chairman Xi Jinping) wasn’t in control of Chairman Kim?   There are some similarities here with Elon Musk.

Musk likely has some of the best tech people in the world working for him and advising him.  He has to know that Twitter is only operationally viable insofar as the twitter simultaneous user processing systems remain on the backbone of U.S. government big data architecture.  Twitter most definitely is not financially stable as a business without govt data-processing subsidy; it’s just too costly and the Twitter service is free for most users.

If you accept that Musk is well aware of the cost issue, then he has to have some plan to deal with it – via at least a vision down the road where Twitter is financially viable – or, he’s going to end up needing the same data processing subsidy from the govt, which would inevitably maintain the same ideological underpinning he is trying to remove.

Assuming Musk is legit in his motives, his only leverage in this game of pretend and conquest, is knowing both the provider (govt) and recipient of the subsidy (Jack) do not want the full scope of the public-private partnership exposed.

I have no idea how this is going to end, but we can all see the Deep State is going bananas.

Apr 21 2022

Does Zuckerberg Belong in Prison?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Apr 21, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

We cannot even donate $10,000 to a political candidate, but if you are Mark Zuckerberg, you can help to manipulate elections. He was able to prevent the break up of his company by pouring hundreds of millions into the election and then blamed Russia for buying advertisements on Facebook during the 2016 election. Mark Zuckerberg dumped more than $400 million into manipulating the 2020 presidential election where the money was typically funneled by Democratic operatives. These were often areas where there was voter canvassing in the get-out-the-vote effort for Biden.

The deep concern here is that the DOJ will NOT investigate Zuckerberg but when the Republicans get back in, Zuckerberg could find himself in prison for interfering in the election where the districts targeted were far too often voting in excess of the normal trend. It has been acknowledged already that private funds were distributed on a truly historical level. I, for one, will NEVER advertise anything on Facebook.

When a public company allows itself to be a political activist, which ONLY reflects the decisions of the board, as Disney is doing in its feud with Florida, then this is an abuse of its fiduciary duty to shareholders when the company is being usurped for personal political agendas. Another one is Salesforce pushing Schwab’s Great Reset.

These companies are violating the very principle of shareholder investment. If I went public and then used company money and policy for a personal objective or gain, that is considered fraud. Merely the fact that such an objective is politics makes no difference – it is using corporate funds for personal gain.

Apr 21 2022

Biden Administration Will Appeal Federal Court Ruling and Attempt to Reinstitute Federal Mask Mandate


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 20, 2022 | Sundance 

Ideological leftism is contingent upon appeasing the most insane elements of the extreme left.

As a consequence, the Biden political CDC has announced they need the Biden political DOJ to try and get the federal mask mandate put back into place.

CDC Announcement: “To protect CDC’s public health authority beyond the ongoing assessment announced last week, CDC has asked DOJ to proceed with an appeal in Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc., et al., v. Biden, et al. It is CDC’s continuing assessment that at this time an order requiring masking in the indoor transportation corridor remains necessary for the public health.” (LINK)

According to NBC News, “the Justice Department said that it has filed a notice of appeal “in light of today’s assessment by the CDC” in a statement late Wednesday afternoon.” (LINK)

The Covidians who define themselves by their adherence to the dictates of the U.S. government, are happy.  However, in an election year where the overwhelming majority of the American people have had enough of this political science, this decision fuels an angry rebuke.

Apr 21 2022

Former Intel Officials Want Efforts to Break Up Big Tech Stopped – Data Control and Retention of Social Media Partnership Is a National Security Imperative


Posted Originally on the conservative tree house on April 20, 2022 | Sundance

Put this in the tab labeled ‘conclusive proof of prior suspicions.’

Former Obama era intelligence officials, those who helped construct, organize and assemble the public-private partnership between intelligence data networks and supported social media companies, have written a letter to congress warning that any effort to break up Big Tech (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Microsoft, etc.) would be catastrophic for the national security system they have created.

[READ LETTER HERE]

Citing the information control mechanisms they assembled, vis-a-vis the ability of social media networks to control and approve what is available for the public to read and review, the intelligence officials declare that any effort to break up the private side of the intel/tech partnership will only result in less ability of the intelligence apparatus to control public opinion.

They willfully admit that open and uncensored information is adverse to the interests of the intelligence state and therefore too dangerous to permit.   They specifically argue, if the modern system created by the partnership between the U.S. government and Big Tech is not retained, the national security of the United States is compromised.  Let that sink in for a moment.

One of their reference citations revolves around Ukraine and the Russia narrative:

“U.S. technology platforms have given the world the chance to see the real story of the Russian military’s horrific human rights abuses in Ukraine, including the atrocities committed in Bucha, and the incredible bravery of the Ukrainian people who continue to stand their ground. Social media platforms are filled with messages of support for Ukraine and fundraising campaigns to help Ukrainian refugees.” (Paragraph 2, Letter)

Keep in mind the “Bucha” narrative is widely disputed by people who have reviewed the western government/media evidence.

There is equal evidence the Bucha narrative was a western intelligence operation, created to give a false impression and generate public support for advanced military operations in Ukraine.

Seeing this public relations effort using the Bucha story as evidence to support their goal of keeping Big Tech isolated from legislative review, only lends more credence to suspicions the Bucha events were a U.S. led intelligence operation (false flag).

Glenn Greenwald has a good take on the granular details behind their letter:

[…] This is where these former intelligence and national security officials come in. While these former CIA, Homeland Security and Pentagon operatives have little sway in the Senate Judiciary and House Antitrust Committees, they command great loyalty from Congressional national security committees.  Those committees, created to exert oversight of the U.S. intelligence and military agencies, are notoriously captive to the U.S. National Security State.

The ostensible purpose of this new letter is to insist that Big Tech monopoly power is vital to U.S. national security — because it is necessary for them to censor “disinformation” from the internet, especially now with the grave Russian threat reflected by the war in Ukraine — and they thus demand that the anti-Big-Tech bills first be reviewed not only by the Judiciary and Antitrust Committees, but also the national security committees where they wield power and influence”… (read more)

Of course, the Fourth Branch of Government would want to get the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence involved.  The SSCI created all of the mechanisms to facilitate the existence of the Fourth Branch of Government.  However, I would take the issue deeper…. and ask readers to see what really worries the intelligence apparatus about the potential breakup of Big Tech.

These are the intelligence people who constructed the model for Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop.

This public-private partnership between the cyber division of the intelligence apparatus and Big Tech social media is where the free coffee comes from.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and even Google itself, are financially and operationally dependent on the scale of the data processing system that is run by the U.S. government.  The capacity of each of the big social media companies to exist, operate and be financially viable, is dependent on the backbone of interconnected data networking, and massive data processing.

The scale of simultaneous user data-processing is not financially viable without the U.S government subsidizing it.  That’s the free coffee that cannot be duplicated in the private sector by any competing social media company.  That’s the cost and scale system behind the partnership that permits Big Tech to operate.   Ultimately, this is what the intelligence apparatus needs to keep hidden from the American (and global) public.

The biggest of the Big DATA processing is done through a public-private collaboration between Big Tech and Big Government/Intel.

Any private sector entity who attempts to create, or duplicate the scale of social media runs into this cost issue.  It is just too expensive to operate a competing coffee shop without the free coffee.   That’s why the coffee providers are lined up against Elon Musk’s attempt to buy Twitter.

The ramifications of the public discovering Facebook and Twitter social media are only possible with subsidy from government tech architecture are massive.  Essentially, the U.S. government is in control of our social media networking.  That’s the bigger story behind this letter.

These officials are trying to preserve the surveillance system they created.

The public-private partnership is a system for surveillance of the American people through technology.

BACKGROUND – 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 admission, along with the admission of collaboration from 2021, puts a social media 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 was an admission of a relationship with Big Tech along with open intent to define their domestic political opposition as extremists.

July 26, 2021, (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 through their efforts in social media.

In the decades before 9/11/01 the intelligence apparatus intersected with government, influenced government, and undoubtedly controlled many institutions with it.  Back then, 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 era intelligence team took pre-assembled intelligence weapons we should never have allowed to be created and turned those weapons into tools for radical, political 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.

…It’s all Connected Folks, SEE HERE

[…] “The vision was first outlined in the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise plan championed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and IC Chief Information Officer Al Tarasiuk almost three years ago.” … “It is difficult to underestimate the cloud contract’s importance. In a recent public appearance, CIA Chief Information Officer Douglas Wolfe called it “one of the most important technology procurements in recent history,” with ramifications far outside the realm of technology.” (READ MORE)

One job…. “take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.”

References:

Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop – HERE

The Fourth Branch of Government – HERE

Apr 21 2022

Club Rules Highlighted Again – Tennessee Republican Club Blocks Morgan Ortagus, Baxter Lee and Robby Starbuck From Ballot


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 20, 2022 | Sundance 

he Tennessee Republican Club has met to decide who they will permit on the ballot.  Morgan Ortagus, Baxter Lee and Robby Starbuck have been disavowed by the TN Club for being unworthy candidates according to private rules within the assembly.  Mitch McConnell smiles.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which outlines or supports the use of political clubs to create political parties for candidates for office.  This is one of the lesser-known facets to U.S. elections.

The Republican and Democrat parties are private clubs with internal rules that operate within the system for elections.  Each club chapter can make up their own rules and select candidates for approval based on their own qualifications.

TENNESSEE – The Tennessee Republican Party has removed three candidates, including one endorsed by former President Trump, from the primary ballot for one of the state’s House races.

The Tennessee Republican Party voted on Tuesday to dismiss Trump-backed Morgan Ortagus, who previously served as a spokesperson at the State Department, as well as Baxter Lee and Robby Starbuck, from the primary ballot for the state’s 5th Congressional District, state GOP Chairman Scott Golden confirmed to The Hill. (read more)

As the 2022 primary season begins to take shape, it is important to remember that all messaging from the people within the private club known as the GOP (for selected politicians) or RNC (for membership to support the selected politicians), does not come from some organic coincidence.

Everything we witness as the club enters their season of greatest business opportunity is all carefully coordinated and presented.

Remember, “artful politics is the purposeful creation of an illusion of options for the audience,” and YOU are the audience.

The RNC want to give the illusion of support for MAGA conservatism because they need the base and donor activity.  However, every move they make on an operational level is exactly in line with their previous outlook toward cocktail class republicanism.  The MAGA base of support cannot trust this group and must not be blind or unguarded about the Machiavellian schemes they construct.

Both the Democrat and Republican wings of the UniParty in Washington DC created and support the Fourth Branch of Government.  Political candidates from within the party machinery should be reviewed carefully by voters who must ask themselves are they really seeing an illusion of choice?

At federal and state levels, the party operates as a private club to prescreen approved candidates for their ballots.  Nothing about this entire process changes until MAGA people at the local and state level invest themselves to influence the club determinations.  In order to change the club, you must enter the club. That requires a serious investment in time and effort.   Changing the things you can no longer accept is not easy.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Tennessee Republican club decision, you must ask yourself if you are comfortable with a private club making the decision about who can appear on a ballot.  That is the essential problem with party politics, it is rife for corruption, manipulation and the continuation of a political process that never results in the change you may prefer to see.

Conservatives will argue that to run a candidate outside the GOP approval process leads to a split vote that ultimately helps the Democrat party.  Ultra-leftists will argue that to run a candidate outside the DEM approval process leads to a split vote that ultimately helps the Republican party.  That’s the argument stimulated and promoted by club insiders.

Tactical Civics is the only way to overcome this challenge.  Citizens must join the clubs and work to ensure the voice of the majority is represented by the final club outcome, not a filtering process that only keeps the UniParty system in place.

In the past 15+ years, the Communist wing of the Democrat party has done a much better job of tactical civics.  That is why the Overton window keeps moving left.   The conservative wing of the Republican party, the current MAGA movement, has not been as effective on a local, state and federal level as the Communist wing of the Democrats.

If you live in Tennessee, you might want to ask the state Republican Party officials: what is the intention of blocking choice in a Republican primary?  Shouldn’t the primary contest be the place where the voters decide on these candidate filters?   If not, why not?   What exactly is the intent of club filtration?

Asking these probing questions will likely result in some very uncomfortable discoveries.

It’s your vote, but maybe their candidate.  Find out who “they” are.