COMMENT: Marty, you understand markets and the legal system. You were right again. The Supreme Court rejected the Brunson case.
KQ
REPLY: As I wrote before, this was an interesting argument, but it will be even more
“earth-shattering if the Supreme Court actually takes the case and rules on the validity of taking an oath of office.”
How can you support, and defend, the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic if you refuse to even investigate the claim?
Here is the real monumental problem. Does the Supreme Court act constitutionally or has it denied citizens the right to be heard as declared by the Constitution itself? This is why they fight to stack the Supreme Court because the law is just not the law. The real issue is the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the court itself.
I specialized, not just in history, but also in the rise and fall of nations. Historically, a collapse in the rule of law is a key element in the fall of nations. I studied law intensely and some lawyers will often call me on constitutional questions. Why? When you go to law school, you spend very little time on the Constitution. The bulk of law concerns statutory law which is everything written and passed by Congress from civil rights to Obamacare. Very few cases end up challenging the constitutionality of a statute. Instead, they merely challenge the unconstitutional acts of government agents such as police and politicians.
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution is negative, meaning it is a restraint upon government, in Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). That means citizens cannot demand that government create any social program for there is no such Marxist component to the Constitution that people assume exists. There is no government obligation to pay for an abortion or a heart transplant.
I am going to make a statement here I have made to Constitutional lawyers that make their eyes pop out. The Supreme Court has no Constitutional right or permission to exercise “discretion” to hear a case. They must hear every case presented to them for that is dictated by the Constitution and cannot be circumvented by a statute written by Congress or by its own rule-making practice. No statute or rule can negate the constitution as defined by the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2).
The Supreme Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorarieach term (year). The court grants and hears oral arguments in about 80 cases per year in a country of over 300 million. That is outrageous and this practice denies the people the constitutional guarantee of a tripartite government (3 branches) with each branch acting as a check and balance against the others. Let’s review what the structure of government crafted by the Founding Fathers created.
Chief Justice Marshall was held in the landmark case Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1 Cranch) (1803) in which he declared the role of the Judiciary branch. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” When the nation began, the Supreme Court justices rode on “circuits.” Each justice heard cases in their assigned circuits around the country for there were no circuit courts with federal judges. Article III, Section I, of the Constitution expressly states:
“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
The Constitution guaranteed the Supreme Court. It gave the option to Congress to create inferior federal courts around the country, but this was by no means mandatory. The implications of this are quite profound for it means that Congress can close all the federal inferior district and appellate courts, but it cannot close the Supreme Court. The tripartite structure of government requires the Supreme Court – not inferior courts. Justice Reynolds explained this succinctly:
“The accepted doctrine is that the lower federal courts were created by the acts of Congress and their powers and duties depend upon the acts which called them into existence, or subsequent ones which extend or limit.”
Your constitutional right to be heard is being DENIED. That right is being circumvented by demanding you go to a district court judge, then appeal to that circuit court, and then apply to be heard as one of the 7,000+ petitions when they only accept 80. What if a child could not speak to his or her father and would only communicate with them through some nanny? Is there a relationship bond between the father and the child? Of course not.
Inferior courts are under no obligation to apply even a uniform legal code. Each has its own rules and precedents that are unique to each circuit. The law as practiced in New York is different than as practiced in California, Texas, or Florida. It is not all the same! There is no guarantee of EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW when these circuit courts are free to do as they like. The media never writes about this and does not find it strange that we have no unified rule of law in the United States. You have to get to the Supreme Court and they are supposed to take such cases to establish the law nationally when it differs among the circuits.
Chief Justice Marshall also held in 1821 a very important decision holding:
“If the constitution does not confer on the court, or on the federal judiciary, the power sought to be exercised, it is in vain that the act of Congress purports to confer it…”
Congress reduced the power of the Supreme Court by eliminating the constitutional status of the court by enabling them to decide to hear cases at their “discretion,” but that is totally unconstitutional for no statute can amend the Constitution. Any statute or rule created by Congress cannot circumvent the Constitution – PERIOD!
The Constitution ONLY created the Supreme Court. Congress created the statutory inferior court which can be closed at any time because they were NOT created by the Constitution. Therefore, it is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Judiciary Act of 1925 to reduce the Supreme Court to one of discretion. That is a constructive amendment to the constitution which in itself is an act of outright rebellion.
Despite the hatred that many pour all over Trump, they really should stop and think for a moment, that they have been subjected to brainwashing. I have stated before that I was invited to a dinner in March of 2020 at Mara largo where I was actually impressed by then-President Trump. He said he wanted to bring the troops home from Afghanistan because he was sick and tired of having to write letters to the parents of solider’s killed over there. He bluntly stated that he had no idea why were there. They were fighting over borders for 1,000 years. “What difference will we make?”
There is a common thread between JFK, Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump – all three stood against the Deep State. The first was assassinated, the second was set up with CIA operatives getting “caught” breaking ton the Watergate building, and the third was probably removed from office by rigged elections and now desperately trying to accuse him of anything to prevent him from running against in 2024.
John Bolton was against withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. Bolton has been a hardnosed Neocon and then lied to the people not disclosing that Trump had a whole team to figure out how to exit Afghanistan that Biden dismissed and then claimed the same end result would have happened under Donald Trump. I really do not know how these people can look at themselves in the mirror.
JFK and Trump were both against war. Both were conveniently removed from office. In the case of Kennedy, they put forth Oswald and linked him to Russia, but then conveniently had him assassinated to prevent any trial when today everyone knows that the CIA was behind it. The recent tapes have revealed that Richard Nixon bluntly said to the head of the CIA, I know who killed John. The CIA used Watergate to discredit Nixon and drive him from office also because he wanted to end the Vietnam War and understood the CIA’s role.
Then Trump wanted to exist in Afghanistan. But Iran shot down an unmanned drone and Bolton wanted Trump to launch an attack on Iran. Trump refused to retaliate for an unmanned drone. The CIA asked Trump to extend the deadline for their release of the Kenndy assassination files until after the election. He agreed, and they knew Trump would lose the election. Biden then granted them the right to withhold the most critical files that expose the real source – the CIA.
The Deep Stated wanted to kill Americans and blame Cuba to justify an invasion. Kennedy rejected that proposal. This, he had to go. How dare he think he can tell the Deep State what to do!
All three presidents posed a serious threat to the Deep State. Forget the hatred of Trump that they have drummed into the heads of so many. Open your eyes. This is biggest that Trump and your hatred blinds you to what is really going on.
As it appears the US is marching toward war, what is notable this time, unlike what happened in the run-up to US participation in WW2, was the sense of isolationism in this country. Roosevelt was clearly walking a fine line, knowing there was no stomach for US involvement in Europe. US involvement in WW1 also started out similarly with many in the US, in particular those of Irish descent who opposed helping the British in their battle in Europe. Wilson, another Democrat, also walked the straight and narrow, professing neutrality which history shows was a lie. Later, his 14 points, the forerunner to an imposed peace on Germany, would backfire. The League of Nations would die off.
But today, unlike the prior two world wars, both democrats and republicans appear to embrace an escalation in conflict. And with an old, decrepit mannequin in the WH, it looks like there’s nothing stopping this push toward war. Republicans especially are a total disgrace. They stabbed Trump in the back repeatedly or let him twist in the wind for 4 years and for the first two when they were the majority party…did little to show their one chance to lead. Trump did more for peace than any president since Kennedy. Trump at least tried to engage Xie, met with the North Korean leader and focused more on building up the US domestic economy. He tore up US participation in these climate pacts. He focused on building the wall to stem the flow of illegals crossing the border. Her met with the Mexican president and forced his counterpart to accept an arrangement that kept illegals inside Mexico pending and petitions later to the US government for entry based on their applications. And for all this, he was the target for a fraud based on collusion to get elected with Russian help. Which turned out to be baseless. Later, he was implicated in the Jan 6 insurrection…courtesy of both parties. Which itself was a total fabrication.
Both Dems and R’s are now marching lockstep toward war. It’s no wonder public opinion toward the government is sinking to all-time lows. In both parties. Both of which will be swept away in the years ahead for betraying this country on so many levels.
MS
REPLY: Hillary, started this whole mess by launching the fake dossier and blaming Putin for interring in the election. She managed to convince 70% of Democrats that Russia was the enemy. RussiaGate, despite being discredited, set in motion this hatred for Russia. Still, 65% of Americans support Ukraine when in fact what they are doing is relying on a border drawn by Kruschev for administrative purposes and demanding that the Donbas is their territory when NEVER for even a single day have Ukrainian people ever been the majority in that region. This is a land grab and nothing more that is engulfing the entire world all because our idiot politicians want to destroy the world economy so they can blame it on war and default on all the debt.
I get hate mail and death threats from Ukrainian Nazis pretty regularly now. This only shows that we are historically on the wrong side. In WWII, we fought against the Nazo movement. This time, we support ethnic cleansing.
Americans fled here to escape the political chaos and warmongering in Europe. So when WWI and WWII took place, the American people saw no reason to go support a political movement that they had fled. Indeed, FDR’ solemn campaign promise was no boys would be sent to fight in a foreign war. That is why he did everything possible to get Japan to attack Pearl Harbor for that was the ONLY way to overcome the anti-war position of Americans. They have done the same to get Russia to act to protect the Donbas from the Ukrainians who began the civil war.
FDR repeated that solemn promise in Boston which was predominantly Irish. They refused to defend Britain openly recalling what the English did to the Irish. That was why FDR needed Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Today, they needed Russia to launch its special operation which was absolutely legal under the United Nations Rules for he was protecting the Donbas, not seeking to conquer Ukraine.
All of those memories of past wars are long gone. Today, we cheer on war because we think it will be like watching Iraq on CNN after nightly dinner. As they say:
Posted originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundance
Hungary has been in the crosshairs of the Biden/Obama administration ever since Prime Minister Viktor Orban refused to align with the WEF Western Democracies in their quest for regime change in Russia. As the NATO led western alliance assembled to use Ukraine as a proxy war against Russia, Hungarian Prime Minister Orban would not join.
In early April 2022, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban was overwhelmingly reelected {LINK}, despite the massive efforts against him by the European Union, western and euro-centric multinational globalists. As a result of the victory, Brussels was furious at the Hungarian people. Associated Press – […] “Orban — a fierce critic of immigration, LGBTQ rights and “EU bureaucrats” — has garnered the admiration of right-wing nationalists across Europe and North America.” (link)
Within the statements reported from his 2022 victory speech, Prime Minister Orban warned citizens of the NATO and western allied countries about the manipulation of Ukraine and how he views the Zelenskyy regime: […] “while speaking to supporters on Sunday, Orban singled out Zelenskyy as part of the “overwhelming force” that he said his party had struggled against in the election — “the left at home, the international left, the Brussels bureaucrats, the Soros empire with all its money, the international mainstream media, and in the end, even the Ukrainian president.” (link)
This put Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the crosshairs of the western alliance, specifically the EU and U.S. bureaucrats who use their power, position and intelligence apparatus to manipulate foreign nations. A year later and now we see USAID Administrator Samantha Power in Hungary openly discussing her seeding of the NGO’s and political activist systems in order to generate yet another color revolution. {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:
Samantha Power, the wife of Cass Sunstein, is well known as the Obama/Biden administration’s advance operative who uses her position in U.S. government to influence activism in targeted nations. Hungary is now her target.
Why is eliminating Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban now the goal of the Biden administration. Well, a reminder:
The World Economic Forum and NATO/Western Alliance cannot permit a nation to stand on principles of nationalism. Allowing a point of contrast that would showcase the weakness of globalism and multiculturalism is something the western control system just cannot permit.
As a result, Samantha Power, the U.S. State Dept (USAID) and the CIA, are collectively running an operation in Hungary, seeding the groundwork for the next color revolution.
They don’t even try to hide this stuff anymore.
Just keep watching…. More will become visible, and our conversation will now have context for what comes next.
[FWIW, I always suspected S Power of being a CIA operative]
Posted originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundanc
It’s not just random data points. It is an alignment of multiple datapoints, appearing at random intervals, that all align in one very specific direction.
The key is being able to spot them. WATCH (1 min):
[BACKGROUND] … “This is where the RGA looks to have been recruited for a larger role in 2024 than was deployed in 2016. Keep an eye on Republican governors and how they position their advocacy and endorsements.” {GO DEEP}
An ideological alignment of individual people, institutions and organizations working in concert toward a common goal is not a conspiracy. Once the objective of the common interest is identified, all benefactory components operate individually. What becomes visible is the similarity of the actions.
This is where we see patterns and common actions taken toward a common goal. This reality is the context to understand how the political dynamic is constructed in opposition to Donald Trump, and more specifically how the America First policy platform of Presidential candidate Donald Trump is viewed as a common threat.
Individuals, institutions, government ‘stakeholders’, and generally all status-quo interests stand in opposition, as reflected in the historic Niccolò Machiavelli quote:
“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”
When the new system is constructed to the benefit of the many yet disrupts the status of the few (the proverbial elite) who benefit from retention of the old, those in the at-risk minority must pretend not to know things. Additionally, through passive aggressive undermining that same elite group frame their opposition to provide themselves plausible deniability.
It is in this political mix of eclectic interests where a person needs an intellectual filtration system, tuned to the granular nuances, in order to make sense of the landscape and see the big picture.
Posted Originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundance
If you accept the likelihood of the 2024 Wall Street Republican roadmap being the defining difference between 2016 and 2024, then you can easily see how the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA), the state level system where the policy of GOP governors are purchased by big money, will be the driving influence. It is into this mixed manipulation where New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu becomes of strategic value.
Someone has to try and maintain the narrative of “free markets” as a Republican priority, enter Chris Sununu. Readers here and middle-class workers of America have decades of experience seeing exactly what the outcome of Republican “free market” capitalism creates. Selling out the U.S. worker and manufacturing base in favor of globalism, multinational corporate exploitation and profits at any cost are the result. In modern economic reality, there is no such thing as a “free market,” there are only controlled markets {GO DEEP}.
Pushing the conservative ‘free market’ narrative, the corporate controlled Chris Sununu appears on Face the Nation to gaslight the base republican voter with old catchphrases that used to work; they no longer do. People can now see through the rustbelt prism and identify the destruction created by the Wall Street funded UniParty apparatus. This is what 2024 presidential candidate Chris Sununu is trying to lie about. However, no republican candidate is an economic nationalist, except President Donald Trump. WATCH:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face the Nation. We’re joined now by the Republican governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu. And it’s good to have you here…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU (R-New Hampshire): Thanks.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … in person.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Great to be here. Better here than the rest of Washington, because this whole town gives me the — it gives me the chills sometimes.
(LAUGHTER)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you might need to go get over that if you’re going to run for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, as, apparently, you are considering doing.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, look, a lot of opportunity to change things, right?
I think New Hampshire has this awesome model of live free or die, limited government, local control, individual responsibility, really putting the voters first, send them some money, which is nice, but send them the regulatory authority too.
So a little decentralizing out of Washington and maybe a little better attitude would be — would be a good thing for America.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What’s the proactive reason you want to be president, not something that President Biden is doing wrong…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … but something you want to achieve?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes, which is the right question you’re asking, by the way, because I — it drives me crazy when Republicans talk in an echo chamber about how bad the president is, and Democrats.
We got the memo, as Republicans. You got to be for something. What I’m trying to do is kind of show that New Hampshire model, show the opportunity to get stuff done. I have had Republicans in my legislature. I have Democrats in my legislature. I always get my conservative agendas done.
We always cut taxes. We always balance a budget. And I can explain to folks in Washington what a balanced budget actually means. So, there are paths. And I think America is looking for results. We need results-driven leadership, not just leadership that…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Like what?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Look, whether it’s cutting taxes, being pro- business, the regulatory reform, the immigration stuff that we were told was going to happen in 2017 and 2018 as Republicans, and it didn’t.
We were told health care reform would happen. It didn’t. We were told we were going to secure the border, and we didn’t. So, there’s all this great opportunity that has a domino effect. They’re not just things to check off a list, but those things have huge impacts on the American economy and, most importantly, American families, right?
They just want flexibility to do what they do. And, frankly, they’re tired of the nonsense in D.C. They’re tired of — of extreme candidates. They’re tired of gridlock. They want somebody to come to the table. And it could be myself. It could be other governors. It could — but it has to be leadership with proven results.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: I have been in the private sector as an engineer and a business leader. I have been in the public sector. You got to be able to deliver.
And you got to, hopefully, be inspirational and hopeful, as opposed to all this negativity you see.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you still have to get the Congress to work with you to do that very long laundry list of things you just read off to us.
So, when you were here in November, you told us that President Biden would not run for president, in your estimation. You just saw him up close for the past few days.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that still what you believe?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, I know other people will definitely run. They’re going to get in the race.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Democrats, you believe, will challenge him?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, absolutely, yes, yes, because…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why do you say that? Did someone tell you that in the last few days?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, Joe Biden has tried to move the first-in-the- nation primary from New Hampshire, right? But we’re going to — we’re going first, whether the president likes it or not.
And so that’s going to be a huge opportunity for anybody who wants to step up and challenge him. And if you look at the polls across the country, the average Democrat says, yes, thanks for your service on one term, but let’s keep it to one term, President Biden.
And I just don’t believe the Democrat left-wing elite is going to sit on the sidelines, knowing you could come to New Hampshire, get all the earned media, all the attention…
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: … without a whole lot of money, all that political momentum. He’s opened up his political flank, so to say, to give someone else a huge opportunity to charge right through and take that nomination from him.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we’ll see if your — if your projection plays out.
You’ve been talking about trying to sort of remind the party that Republicans are about limited government.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You said recently: “Republicans are almost trying to outdo Democrats at their own game of being big government and having a solution and a say on everything.”
Who were you thinking of when you say that?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, there’s a lot — look, I think there’s a lot of leadership out there that forget — that forgets.
At heart, I’m a principled free market conservative. Let the markets decide. So there’s no individual, per se, but there’s a lot of leadership that says, you know what, when we’re not getting that result out of a private business or locality, we’ll just impose from the top down our conservative will.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re not talking…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … about the Florida governor and Disney, for example, are you?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Well, that’s a bad example. Yes, that’s — that’s an example, one of the many examples you see out there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Ron DeSantis may be running for president as well.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Sure. Yes.
Yes, look, Ron’s a very good governor. He is. But I’m just trying to remind folks what we are at our core. And if we’re trying to beat the Democrats at being big government authoritarians, remember what’s going to happen. Eventually, they’ll have power in a state or in a position, and then they’ll start penalizing conservative businesses and conservative nonprofits and conservative ideas.
That is the worst precedent in the world. That’s exactly what the founding fathers tried not to — tried to avoid. And so I’m trying to remind my conservative friends about federalism, free markets, and being for the voter first, being for the individual.
Do I like what every private business says? No, I hate this woke cancel culture. But it’s a cultural…
MARGARET BRENNAN: What does that mean to you then?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Woke cancel culture?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, it’s — it’s — look, it’s…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because you’re not a culture warrior, really.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: No, no, no. No, but it’s there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What does woke cult — what does that mean in your platform?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: It’s the — it’s the divisiveness — divisiveness we see not just in our schools, but in our communities, where it is me vs. you, whereas, if you are not adhering to my ideals, then I’m going to cancel you out.
It is us vs. them. It is this binary where everything’s a war. That’s a cultural problem we have to fix in America. And it starts with good leadership, good messaging, more hopeful and optimistic. But government never solves a cultural problem.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. Well…
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: We can lead on it, but we never solve it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Interesting idea, but you are contradicted by the Republican governor of Arkansas, who gave the response for your party after the State of the Union, who embraced culture war.
She says America’s in one.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Yes, we are.
MARGARET BRENNAN: She says it’s been waged by the left wing, “a woke mob that can’t even tell you what a woman is.”
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: That’s absolutely right. And that’s…
MARGARET BRENNAN: I mean, are you going to engage on things like this, like — like Sanders and DeSantis has in terms of issues on gender and issues of race?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: There should be absolute leadership on that about what that’s about.
And this idea that you have to — you know, we have forced language, that we have forced ideas on our kids, that we’re going to force anything…
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you are going to be a culture warrior?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: No, we have to talk about that, but it isn’t the government’s role to solve it.
The government is not here to solve your problems. It’s not. The government is here to include as many…
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, governors shouldn’t be actually talking and engaging and telling school boards and doing things like this or trying to pass laws like they are?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: I don’t think governors should be trying to pass laws to subvert the will of the voters that know better than us.
Voters are — know more than I do. The voters on that school board know, the voters in those towns know a lot more. And if — that’s the free market of politics. If they don’t like the school board, they get — they go to a town meeting, they fire them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You are — you call yourself a pro-choice Republican.
You still have to win in a Republican primary.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is there room for someone who calls himself a pro-choice Republican?
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: Oh, yes, look, that issue is — look, that issue is going to change three different ways now that Dobbs has happened, right? States can decide what they want to do, right?
So, I think the definition of pro-life and pro-choice and pro-abortion are — are going to be very different, because if you’re a pro-life Republican, that’s fine. That’s — as a governor, you can do that. You can ban it in your state, and you can stay — stand behind those ideals. And maybe that’s exactly what your state wants. No problem.
I’m a pro-choice Republican in a very pro-choice state. But, at the end of the day, you’re going to have the pro-lifer over here…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: .. pro-abortion over here, and then the rest of us are, well, we have a 24-week ban, and you have a 22-week…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
GOVERNOR CHRIS SUNUNU: … and an 18-week ban.
So, the rest of us are kind of in this spectrum of debating about weeks. So that the whole conversation is going to change.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We want to talk about some of these issues in-depth with you in a moment, so stay with us, Governor.
And we’re going to bring in a panel of bipartisan governors with us.
Positive debate on solutions and constructive criticism of approach is always appropriate for our elected officials; heck, that is the essence of our discussion. However, recently there have been many critics of President Trump; many people only just now understanding the problem and proclaiming that President Trump specifically did not do enough to block, impede, stop and counteract the globalist forces that were/are aligned against his effort to Make America Great Again.
Hindsight is 20/20, but there are people who proclaim that Donald J Trump should have been more wise in his counsel; more selective in his cabinet; more forceful in his confrontation of corporate globalists. Let me be clear….
I will never join that crew of Trump critics because I have understood his adversary for decades. CTH did not just come around to the understanding of the enemy. CTH has been outlining the scope of the enemy, the scale of the specific war and the financial and economic power of the opposition for over a decade. We understand the totality of the effort it will take to stop decades of willful blindness amid the American people. We also see with clear eyes exactly what they are doing now, even with President Trump forcefully removed from office, to destroy the threat he still represents.
Donald J Trump was/is a walking red-pill; a “touchstone”: a visible, empirical test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of anything political. I have been deep enough into the network of the Deep State to understand the scale and scope of this enemy. To think that President Trump alone could carry the burden of correcting four decades of severe corruption of all things political, without simultaneously considering the scale of the financial opposition, is naive in the extreme.
♦ POTUS Trump was disrupting the global order of things in order to protect and preserve the shrinking interests of the U.S. He was fighting, almost single-handed, at the threshold of the abyss. Our American interests, our MAGAnomic position, was/is essentially zero-sum. His DC and Wall-Street aligned opposition (writ large) needed to repel and retain the status-quo. They desperately wanted him removed so they could return to full economic control over the U.S, because it is the foundation of their power.
You want to criticize him for fighting harder against those interests than any single man has ever done before him? If so, do it without me.
I am thankful for the awakening Donald J Trump has provided.
I am thankful now for the opportunity to fight with people who finally understand the scale of our opposition.
Without Donald J Trump these entities would still be operating in the shadows. With Donald J Trump we can clearly see who the real enemy is.
In these economic endeavors President Trump was disrupting decades of financial schemes established to use the U.S. as a host for their endeavors. President Trump was confronting multinational corporations and the global constructs of economic systems that were put in place to the detriment of the host (USA) ie YOU. There are trillions at stake; it is all about the economics; everything else is chaff and countermeasures.
The road to a “service-driven economy” is paved with a great disparity between financial classes. The wealth gap is directly related to the inability of the middle-class to thrive.
Elite financial interests, including those within Washington DC, gain wealth and power, the U.S. workforce is reduced to servitude, “service”, of their affluent needs.
The destruction of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base is EXACTLY WHY the middle class has struggled, and exactly why the wealth gap exploded in the past 30 years.
Behind this dynamic we find the international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.
When we understand how trade works in the modern era we understand why the agents within the system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump.
♦The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists.
It doesn’t.
Every element of global economic trade is controlled and exploited by massive institutions, multinational banks and multinational corporations. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank control trillions of dollars in economic activity.
Underneath that economic activity there are people who hold the reigns of power over the outcomes. These individuals and groups are the stakeholders in direct opposition to principles of America-First national economics. Collectively known as “The Big Club”.
The modern financial constructs of these entities have been established over the course of the past three decades. When you understand how they manipulate the economic system of individual nations you begin to understand why they are so fundamentally opposed to President Trump.
In the Western World, separate from communist control perspectives (ie. China), “Global markets” are a modern myth; nothing more than a talking point meant to keep people satiated with sound bites they might find familiar. Global markets have been destroyed over the past three decades by multinational corporations who control the products formerly contained within global markets.
The same is true for “Commodities Markets”. The multinational trade and economic system, run by corporations and multinational banks, now controls the product outputs of independent nations. The free market economic system has been usurped by entities who create what is best described as ‘controlled markets’.
U.S. President Trump understood what had taken place. He used economic leverage as part of a broader national security policy; and to understand who opposes President Trump specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions. The Big Club.
Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to retain and protect.
That is, global financial exploitation of national markets.
FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS:
♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs (harvests and raw materials), and ancillary industries, of developed industrial western nations. {example}
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks. (*note* in China it is the communist government underwriting the purchase)
♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China; and against the backdrop of NAFTA renegotiated; and against the necessary need to support the key U.S. steel and aluminum industries; revisiting the economic influences within the modern import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter.
There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline.
For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?
Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future. The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.”
What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.
It’s not.
It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates, lobbyists, purchased politicians and massive financial corporations.
Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.
Bulletpoint #1:♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.
Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.
A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)
However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).
Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.
…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.
National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. Most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the targeted interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.
Bulletpoint #3 ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead.
In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.
Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is essentially the bastardized and politicized function of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is also how the corporations controlling WTO policy maximize profits.
Back to the lemons. A multinational corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.
If the U.S. lemon harvest is abundant, the controlling interests will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.
The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.
The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly nonsense.
A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.
Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Massive multinational corporations control the majority of production inside each nation and therefore control the global product market and price. It is a controlled system.
EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control. By lobbying DC these multinational corporations get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use Food Stamps, EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates).
Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic.
With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally. Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins. The corporations then use a portion of those enhanced profits in contributions to the politicians. It’s a circle of money.
In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees. As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time. These are specialized lobbyists.
It is ironic when we discuss corporate financial payments to government officials in foreign countries we call them corrupt. However, in the United States we call it lobbying, the process is exactly the same.
EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.
CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.
The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)
Bulletpoint #4 ♦ With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth. This is the basic premise, the cornerstone, behind the catch-phrase ‘globalism’.
It is never discussed.
To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).
Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, thanks to the WTO it’s almost everything.
Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the corporations can charge U.S. consumers more. Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can better afford the high prices.
Of course, if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them. (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system)
Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.
The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.
Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).
This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, coking coal, then sells the finished good (rolled steel) back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.
The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upset the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focused exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).
‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.
Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.
This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.
Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations, and the political institutions they pay for, were/are aligned against President Trump; and they will never relent in their need to see the risk he/we represents destroyed.
I will never relent in my support for anyone who fights this enemy.
I will align with and encourage anyone who joins this fight.
If you are looking for criticism against the only person I have ever witnessed who actually fought our correct enemy, look elsewhere.
Posted originally on the CTH on February 12, 2023 | Sundance
Appearing on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Mike McCaul, discusses the ongoing Biden administration battle in the sky with balloons, objects and various Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO’s).
McCaul identifies China as the most likely culprit for sending the spy and surveillance equipment over North America, claiming the timing of the spycraft arrival against the backdrop of the military revealing the latest stealth bomber, the “B-21 Raider,” does not seem coincidental.
Additionally, because of course he does, Chairman McCaul notes that if we do not continue to send billions to Ukraine, then China and Russia will continue sending spy missions over the United States. The way we defeat the UFO’s is to send more money to Ukraine. That’s his logic, and he’s sticking to it. WATCH:
MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to Congressman Michael McCaul. He is the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Good morning to you.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-Texas): Morning, Margaret. Thanks for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to start on this unusual activity, three takedowns in eight days. In the case of the spy balloon, this was Chinese surveillance, according to the administration. On Friday, they put restrictions on six Chinese companies that allegedly helped China’s military build that balloon. Is this the right move, to just try to make it harder for them to get U.S. technology, or does Congress need to do something that’s more broad?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, it’s certainly the right move.
It will be one of my number one priorities, as the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in this Congress, to stop the export of technology to China that then goes into their most advanced weapons systems, in this case, a sophisticated spy balloon that went across three nuclear sites, I think it’s important to say, in plain view of the American people, you know, in Montana, the triad site, air, land, and sea nuclear weapons.
In Omaha, the spy balloon went over our Strategic Command, which is our most sensitive nuclear site. It was so sensitive that President Bush was taken there after 9/11. And then, finally, Missouri, the B-2 bomber, that’s where they are placed. It did a lot of damage.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that what U.S. intelligence told you? They have been saying they mitigated the impact.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: They say they mitigated it.
But my assessment, and — and I can’t get into the detail of the intelligence document — is that, if it was still transmitting going over these three very sensitive nuclear sites, I think — I think, if you look at the flight pattern of the balloon, it tells a story as to what the Chinese were up to as they controlled this aircraft throughout the United States.
Going over those sites, in my judgment, would cause great damage. Remember, a balloon could see a lot more on the ground than a satellite.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you said you want to try to stop the export of technology that can be used by China’s military.
As a conservative, though, how much — this has to make you a little uncomfortable to have government try to control private business investment. How do you do that?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, we have what’s called an entities list. The Department of Commerce had jurisdiction over the office within their — the Department of Defense has one.
We need to harmonize those, make it more security-focused. You know, capital flows is one issue, but technology exports into China that they use to turn — that maybe eventually turn against us, we have to stop doing that.
And I think we can do it by sectors. They do it by companies now. Obviously, they identified the six. I think, shockingly, when the balloon was recovered, it had American-made component parts in there with English on that. It was made — you know, parts made in America that were put on a spy balloon from China. I don’t think the American people accept that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you believe that this was a strategic choice by Xi Jinping’s government in Beijing, or do you believe that it was just the left and right hand not knowing what was going on?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: When I saw the sites that it was flying over, it was very clear to me this was an intentional act. It was done with provocation to gather intelligence data and collect intelligence on our three major nuclear sites in this country.
Why? Because they’re looking at what — what is our capability in the event of a possible future conflict in Taiwan? They’re really assessing what we have in this country. I find it extraordinary the timing of this flight as well, right before the State of the Union speech, and also right before Secretary Blinken was scheduled to meet with Chairman Xi.
I think it was very much an act of belligerence on their part. And perhaps they don’t care what — what the American people think about that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, I want to ask you.
You voted in the last Congress to provide a lot of assistance to Ukraine. But, this past week, at least 10 of your members, Republican members, introduced a bill called the Ukraine Fatigue Resolution to try to cut off aid.
How hard is it going to be to have a Republican-led House continue to help Ukraine?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I still believe, Margaret, there are many, on both sides of the aisle, a majority of the majorities in support of this.
We have — we have factions on the left and right that do not support Ukraine…
MARGARET BRENNAN: This WAS a Republican bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: … assistance, and that will probably continue.
Right. And I do think, for me, particularly, it’s — we have to educate, where has the money gone? You know, the audits that are in place right now, there are four of them on Ukraine funding. And we have to explain, why is Ukraine so important?
You know, what happens in Ukraine impacts Taiwan and Chairman Xi, that China’s aligned with Russia, Iran and North Korea against freedom, democracy in the West. And I think that’s a debate we’ll have, but I still feel very confident that we will give them the assistance they need.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I would like to see it faster, so they can win this faster.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you — you think Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, others who signed this need to be educated?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I — you know, look, we took Marjorie Taylor Greene into a briefing.
She was satisfied, I thought, with what — the controls that have been put in place on the spending. But I don’t think that they will be — ever be persuaded that this cause is something that they would support.
I think they have this false dichotomy that somehow we can’t help Ukraine beat back the Russians, who invaded their country and — and secure the border. We can do both. We’re a great nation. And the fact of the matter is, unfortunately, this administration has chosen not to secure the border. He can’t even control and secure our airspace now, it looks like.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman McCaul, thank you for your time today.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Thanks, Margaret. Thanks for having me.
Of course, the Goldbugs always misinterpret a rally in gold. The buying coming from China is in preparation for war – not bullish gold for the sake of gold. I have warned that if war was coming, then you will see China start to sell off US Treasuries. You certainly do not fund your adversary’s war against yourself.
China was buying aggressively during January, but they have backed off slightly. January was simply the standard 3-month reaction. The strong gold buying from China corresponded to China’s accelerated selling of U.S. Treasuries.
China is not buying gold because they think it will rally. It is perfectly fine if the price declines and just consolidates. They know war is coming and they can no longer maintain their reserves in dollars, euros, or yen no less than anyone else in the West – it all must go! Gold offers a non-political affiliation – neutrality. This is not buying gold as if it were an investment. We have completely different motives going on. Our own model warns that by 2032, there will be no United States acting as the reserve currency. The Biden Administration has done everything perfectly to destroy the world economy and the sad part about it, these morons do not even understand what they have done.
Tony, a reader, sent in a question. Message: “Mr. Armstrong what do you make of attorney general Merrick Garland’s recent approval to seize all of Russia’s assets that had been frozen in the United States to be given to the Ukraine?” Garland is violating every principle of international law. Denying Due Process of Law which comes from the Bible. When Cain killed Abel, God summoned him and gave him an opportunity to be heard, despite the fact he knew what he did. That is Due Process of Law – the right to be heard. What Garland is doing is outright unconstitutional and it is Treason to the foundation of every principle upon which this nation was founded.
The right to be heard resides in both the Sixth Amendment as well as the Fourteenth Amendment. A right to hearing entails that an individual maintains and be afforded the legal right to be heard in the venue of a court of law with adequate due process attached. Garland has shown he is violating the Civil Rights Act and is unworthy of holding any office whatsoever. If he were not in charge of the Department of Justice, he would be criminally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 241.
18 U.S.C. § 241
Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or because of his or her having exercised such a right.
You cannot take anyone’s assets without Due Process of Law – PERIOD!
The confiscation of Russian assets is a clear violation of international law. They are including money confiscated from individuals as well. The destruction of NordStream was an act of economic warfare. These are acts that demonstrate what I have been saying – this is a war to DESTROY Russia. That is why Zelensky has instructed no peace negotiations. This has been planned for the fake Minsk Agreement. The West wanted to conquer Russia and they are prepared to see every Ukrainian die to weaken Russia so they will then send in Poland with tanks to conquer Moscow.
We are the aggressor. This is a Climate Change War and the end goal is a New World Order with one government. The current monetary system is collapsing. I believe Schwab’s Great Reset is our 2032. He knows our model. He realizes it is all collapsing. He is out to push it in his direction when the tree of liberty falls.
The current administration of the United States is out of control. It is destroying everything that we have worked for generations since World War II and it now even supports the nazis we once fought against.
CTH has never pretended or played the game of pretending, but several people have discussed the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing today on the Twitter censorship issue… and thus, some reminders and clarifications of inside DC politics are needed.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, hereafter called the House Oversight Committee or HOC, has a very specific function in DC circles that apparently too few understand. Once again, let us be clear while trying to explain decades of false information founded upon arcane legislative outlooks.
This article is specific only to the House Oversight Committee.
Within Washington DC, the HOC has a very specific and unique function. What Fox News is to corporate conservative punditry, so too is the HOC to the same DC system of pretending. The House Oversight Committee is the “Chaff and Countermeasures” committee. The HOC operates for both parties with the same mission.
The House Oversight Committee was/is created by the House legislative leadership to make money for the party in control of the Chair. When the House Speaker is notified of a DC corruption issue, inside his/her office they will often be heard saying, “give it to oversight.” The intent of that instruction is to give the issue to the HOC, so they can hold hearings, create soundbites and fundraise from the issue.
Making money for the party in control of the Chair is the primary function of the House Oversight Committee. The HOC does not exist to create accountability or oversight; the HOC exists to exploit the issue for fundraising and satiate the base voters of the party in control of the Chair. The HOC presents the illusion of accountability by constructing soundbites and member performances which are then broadcast on television for appearances to the voting audience. It is essentially theater.
The HOC is a “general oversight’ committee, not a committee of “specific jurisdiction.” Thus, the HOC is the vehicle where Democrats and Republicans publicly display their political initiatives, frame their narratives and then broadcast them on MSNBC, CNN (Democrats) or FOX NEWS (Republicans).
Depending on the issues at hand, the HOC committee members are generally those performance actors best known to the audience of both parties. This is not accidental; this is by design. Again, for emphasis, I am only talking about the HOC, a “generalized oversight” committee. Only this specific committee has this specific mission.
A hot button topic enters the committee ecosphere. Specifically trained staffers and performance artists, uniquely qualified to put on theatrical productions (both parties), are then deployed to assist the representatives in creating the soundbites that hopefully will go viral and assist them with fundraising and opportunities to say, “here’s what we are doing.” Outlining this construct is not an exhibition in cynicism; this is the reality of what the HOC is designed and created to do.
When you see the HOC performing at their best, you will see lots of soundbites created.
The Chair of the HOC is always part of the House Speaker’s close inner circle. From that association you will discover by training, by habit, and by consequence, the HOC framework is developed to sustain the process itself as an end result. The questioning is the sum total of all accountabilities. The performance is the interview; the conversation is the point; the smoke is the fire.
Oversight, in the HOC framework of narrative creation, has evolved into reveling in the endless process (a fundraising proposition) and, as a consequence, it completely ignores the end point, misses the bottom line, doesn’t actually SEE the subject matter, and never actually applies accountability toward what might be discovered. This is why you end up with high blood pressure, frustrated with the questions not asked, and throwing bricks at the screen or monitors when viewing.
The point of HOC hearings is to create what are now described as “viral moments” that can be used to generate money. The second, and lesser objective, is to give the illusion of accountability while not actually ever holding anyone or anything accountable. See prior HOC reference points like Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, Benghazi which outline the latest intent with the Twitter censorship issue.
If you watch the HOC Twitter hearing through the prism of expecting some form of accountability for the violations of the First Amendment, you will be frustrated and disappointed. However, if you watch the HOC Twitter hearing through the prism of how well the panelists will do at raising money from their performances, then you can evaluate the effectiveness; the proverbial winning and losing.
The HOC is designed by House leadership to perform the same basic function for both Democrats and Republicans. The HOC committee assignments are selected based on the theatrical skills of each representative. This is not to say the motives of the members are sullied or impure, it is simply to point out the motive of the committee itself is to generate fundraising from the skillsets of the members on the committee.
Once you fully grasp what the intent of the House Oversight Committee is about, and once you drop the expectation that any accountability in oversight is the intent, then you can watch the performances through the entertainment prism of partisan politics and genuinely enjoy them. There are, after all, some exceptional soundbites and moments created by the hearings themselves.
The HOC is called the “Chaff and Countermeasures” Committee, because that’s essentially what the committee does. It gives the appearance of targeting, steering the target to a controlled destination, and then distracting the audience from the outcome of accountability.
If sunlight is achieved, meaning the Mainstream Media cannot ignore the issue as presented and questioned, and if the general public become more familiar with the controversial subject matter or topic at hand, and if the party of the Chair can fundraise from the issue, then the committee has succeeded. However, if you are looking for something to change as an outcome of any HOC hearing, you will be disappointed.
All of the insiders in Washington DC know this to be true; but, when discussing the HOC specifically, the insiders cannot violate the DC code and make this reality a part of the public consciousness. To make this operational mission widely understood is to diminish the financial value of it.
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 