Fox News – “ominous Great Depression warning”


Armstrong Economics Blog/Economics Re-Posted Feb 1, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

Fox Business is reporting that economic conditions are much worse than you are being told.  Unfortunately, this is the conclusion when you have ZERO understanding of the historical trends and economic conditions. It is true that the shortages of COVID have caused prices to rise faster than economic growth and most incomes.  Therefore, they conclude that our standard of living has been rapidly declining.  The number reveals that more than one-third of all U.S. young adults are being supported in part by their parents. Thanks to COVID, this disrupted society far greater than anyone is reporting. In addition to the shortages because of the lockdowns, by the end of 2020, more than half of young adults in America were living with one or both parents. That statistic actually exceeded the record high of the Great Depression.

Here is the worst part of this analysis. Many are jumping on the bandwagon claiming that the decline in real disposable income has been the largest since 1932 and therefore, this is a warning sign of a Great Depression is coming. They seem to be focused on the fact that the GDP report showed a significant decline in real disposable income, which fell over $1 trillion in 2022. Now let’s look closer!

First of all, the entire reason why unemployment rise to 25% during the latter part of the Great Depression was the Dust Bowl. Why? At that time, about 40% of the civil workforce was still agrarian. The Dust Bowl meant job loss. If you could not even plant crops, there was no need for people to pick crops.

Service during the Great Depression accounted for 17% of the workforce compared to 44%+ today. Government, federal, state, and local, was 22% of the civil workforce during the Great Depression compared to 33% by 1980. Things have continued to evolve and by 2019, services represent 79.41%. Agriculture is now a tiny fraction of what it once was – 1.41%.

In the USA, at the state level, their share of the civil workforce varies greatly. Florida is at about 11.3% compared to New Mexico which is 22.5% – a government employee’s paradise. The lowest is Michigan at 10.1%.

During the Great Depression, the entire reason for the collapse in disposable income was the collapse in agriculture which created a collapse in income due to massive unemployment. That is totally different from the crisis we have today.

Here we have rising prices due to shortages and then central banks raising interest rates in a fool’s quest to stop inflation when it is not based on speculation. Moreover, the biggest borrower is the government, and rising interest rates will only increase their exposure to keep rolling over the debt. Therefore, governments have been borrowing year after year. What happens when the public no longer buys their debt? Real disposable income has been collapsing for completely different reasons since 1932. Here we have the costs of everything rising and then these people want war with Russia and China. Every war since the start of recorded history has resulted in inflation. Add to this, the total insanity of trying to end climate change by outlawing fossil fuels at a time when the climate is prone to getting colder.

We are already witnessing riots around the world BECAUSE of inflation. During the Great Depression, people were suffering from DEFLATION. So comparing just that statistic of a decline in personal income and projecting we now face a Great Depression, does not even qualify to be classified as analysis. That is no different from someone warning that carrots must be lethal because everyone who has ever eaten a carrot has obviously died.

Austria & Hungary Refuse to give Weapons to Ukraine


Armstrong Economics Blog/Ukraine Re-Posted Feb 1, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

The people who are pushing for World War III attack anyone who tells the truth about Ukraine is suddenly a “Putin Supporter” when in fact they are the new merchants of death who have no regard for human civilization or history. I have dealt with every country surrounding Ukraine including Ukraine. ALL OF THERE NEIGHBORS say the same thing – beware of Ukrainians.

Austria and Hungary have come out and refused to send weapons to Ukraine. Hopefully, when this turns really ugly, their countries may be spared. Ukraine is filled with Nazis and their hatred for Russians knows no limit. NATO troops are already there without a formal declaration of war. If they die in battle, Ukrainians are choppy off their heads and hands so they cannot be identified which would expose NATO’s involvement.

I have warned that the West is the aggressor and have once again lied to the people. Zelensky stood up on February 23rd, and stated to the world that Ukraine would arm itself with nuclear weapons. Putin made a speech to the Russian people that night and launched the invasion the next day. VP Harris at the Munich Security Counsel bluntly told Ukraine to join NATO. Then Merkel admitted that the Minsk Agreement which was to allow the Donbas to vote on their own independence was a sham only to buy time for Ukraine to build an army to start World War III.

I reported that Ukraine had lost nearly 50% of its army. That was classified information from the Ukrainian side. I got emails saying, of course, that was Russian propaganda. The head of the EU stated that same figure at first and then had to take it out because Zelensky did not want his people to know the death toll.

Zelensky stood before Congress and bragged that his propaganda machine defeated Russia and had won the minds of the West, which only proved this is really a war to destroy Russia. Zelensky was an actor with no experience in anything else. He was put in place for this role. He has been doing everything to create World War III – that’s his real job.

Any world leader who gives 10 cents to Ukraine should be thrown out of office forthwith!

Elon Musk Invited Me to Twitter HQ & It’s Worse Than You Can Imagine | Direct Message | Rubin Report


The Rubin Report Posted of Rumble on: Jan 30, 11:00 am EST

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about his secret meeting with Elon Musk at the Twitter HQ where he met with Twitter engineers and learned why the shadow banning issue is far worse than anyone imagined; the performance of Finnish transgender figure skater Minna-Maaria Antikainen; his first person account of how insane the California homeless problem has gotten; why Mayor Suarez’s policies in Miami are luring so many people from California and New York to Florida; White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre proving that the Biden administration seems to put diversity and inclusion above competence; CNN’s Dana Bash reading Rep. Ilhan Omar’s antisemitic remarks to her face while she plays dumb; Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford telling “60 Minutes’” Lesley Stahl that childhood obesity has very little to do with diet and exercise; Kathy Hochul doubling down on firing unvaccinated workers even as a nursing shortage is sparking a call to rehire the fired healthcare workers; Bill Gates now agreeing with critics of the COVID vaccine about it’s limits; Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe being attacked by Pfizer director Jordan Tristan Walker; Jordan Peterson telling Joe Rogan his thoughts on the Davos agenda coming out of the World Economic Forum and why the WEF’s climate change policies could be a disaster for the poor; and much more.

Sunday Talks, Speaker Kevin McCarthy -vs- Margaret Brennan


Posted originally on the CTH on January 29, 2023 | Sundance

With talking points in hand CBS’s Margaret Brennan drops all pretenses and goes straight into her role as defender of the Biden regime in the White House.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy appears on Face the Nation for a dueling narrative contest with Ms. Brennan.  WATCH (transcript below):

[Transcript] -Mr. Speaker, good morning to you.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-California): Good morning. Thanks for having me back in studio.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It must be sobering to hear that reminder.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, it took me a little while to get there, but it feels good.

(LAUGHTER)

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you are here now at this key moment in time. And I want to get to some of the top agenda items.

You have accepted an invitation to meet with President Biden. When will that happen, and what offer will you put on the table?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, we’re going to meet this Wednesday.

I know the president said he didn’t want to have any discussions, but I think it’s very important that our whole government is designed to find compromise. I want to find a reasonable and a responsible way that we can lift the debt ceiling, but take control of this runaway spending.

I mean, if you look at the last four years, the Democrats have increased spending by 30 percent, $400 billion. We’re at a 120 percent of GDP. We haven’t been in this place to debt since World War 2. So we can’t continue down this path.

And I don’t think there’s anyone in America who doesn’t agree that there’s some wasteful Washington spending that we can eliminate.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: So, I want to sit down together, work out an agreement that we can move forward to put us on a path to balance, at the same time, not put any — any of our debt in jeopardy at the same time.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But avoid a default, in other words?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But do you have any indication that the president is willing to discuss both lifting the debt ceiling and the issue of future spending?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, if he’s changed his mind from his whole time in the Senate and vice president before — I mean, he literally led the talks in 2011 and he praised having those talks. This is what he’s always done in the past.

And if he listens to the American public, more than 74 percent believe we need to sit down and find ways to eliminate this wasteful spending in Washington. So, I don’t believe he would change his behavior from before, and I know there’s a willingness on our side to find a way that we can find a reasonable and responsible way to get this done.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But, right, I mean, you know why I’m asking that…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: … in terms of not linking one as leverage for the other.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.

Well, in my first conversation — and, to be fair, the president, when he called me to congratulate winning speaker, this is one of the first things I brought up to him. And he said we’d sit down together.

Now, I know his staff tries to say something different, but I think the president is going to be willing to make an agreement together.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we’ll watch for that on Wednesday.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I’m hopeful, yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to dig into what you are willing to put on the table because Republicans campaigned on fiscal responsibility.

You promised you won’t spend more next year than you did last year. Are you willing to consider any reductions to Social Security and Medicare?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No. Let’s take those off the table. We want to…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Completely?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.

I mean, if you read our commitment to America, all we talk about is strengthening Medicare and Social Security. So — and I know the president says he doesn’t want to look at it, but we’ve got to make sure we strengthen those. I think…

MARGARET BRENNAN: What do you mean by strengthen them? You mean lift the retirement age, for example?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No, no, no.

What I’m talking about, Social Security and Medicare, you keep that to the side. What I want to look at is, they’ve increased spending by 30 percent, $400 billion, in four years. When you look at what they have done, adding $10 trillion of debt for the next 10 years in the short time period, if you just look a month ago, they went through and they never even passed a bill through appropriations in the Senate.

While Mr. Schumer has been leader, he’s never passed a budget. He’s never passed the appropriation bill. He simply waits to the — to the end of the year and allowed two senators who are no longer here to write a $1.7 trillion omnibus bill. I think we…

MARGARET BRENNAN: You want to work with Democrats to come to agreement on a budget?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that what you’re saying?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes, I — I first think our very first responsibility, we both should have to pass a budget. We both should have to pass the appropriations bill, so the country can see the direction we’re going.

But you cannot continue the spending that has brought this inflation, that has brought our economic problems. We’ve got to get our spending under control.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK, just fact-check, though, 25 percent of the debt was incurred during the last four years of the Trump presidency. I mean, this is cumulative debt over many, many years.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes, well, over the short — this time period.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But you’ve also found that you had a pandemic.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: And, as that pandemic comes down, those programs leave. I have watched the president say he cut it.

No, it is spending $500 billion more than what was projected. They have spent more. And we’ve got to stop the waste.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is defense spending on the table?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, look, I — I want to make sure we’re protected in our defense spending, but I want to make sure it’s effective and efficient.

I want to look at every single dollar we’re spending, no matter where it’s being spent. I want to eliminate waste wherever it is.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But when you became speaker, you did come to that agreement I have referenced of capping ’24 spending at ’22 levels.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, look, listen…

MARGARET BRENNAN: So that would call for reductions.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, I mean, look, you’re going to tell me, inside defense, there’s no waste? Others? I mean…

(CROSSTALK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: So defense spending is up for negotiation?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: They spend a lot of — I think everything, when you look at discretionary, is sitting there.

It’s like every single household. It’s like every single state. We shouldn’t just print more money. We should balance our budget. So I want to look at every single department. Where can we become more efficient, more effective, and more accountable? That should be…

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, more efficiencies in Social Security and Medicare as well?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: The one thing I want to say, we take Social Security…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Completely?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … and Medicare off the table.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you support a short-term debt limit extension until September, buy more time for talks?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Look, I don’t want to sit and negotiate here.

I would rather sit down with the president, and let’s have those discussions. The one thing I do know is, we cannot continue the waste that is happening. We cannot continue just to spend more money and leverage the debt of the future of America.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: We’ve got to get to a balanced budget.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, and I think many people would agree with you on the issue of fiscal responsibility, but there’s that deadline on the calendar in terms of facing potential default.

Are you saying…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, wait. Wait a minute…

MARGARET BRENNAN: … you will guarantee the United States will not do that?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Listen, we’re not going to default.

But let me be very honest with you right now. So we hit the statutory date. But let’s take a pause. We have hundreds of billions of dollars. This won’t come to fruition until sometime in June. So the responsible thing to do is sit down like two adults and start having that discussion.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Unfortunately, the White House was saying before, like, they wouldn’t even talk.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I’m — I’m thankful that we’re meeting on Wednesday, but that’s exactly what we should be doing.

And we should be coming to a responsible solution. Every family does this. What is — what has happened with the debt limit is, you reached your credit card limit. Should we just continue to raise the limit? Or should we look at what we’re spending?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it’s paying past commitments.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: If Chuck Schumer — yes, but if — no, no.

Chuck Schumer never passed a budget since he’s been leading. He’s never passed an appropriation bill. Those are the most basic things that Congress should do. And what — if you’re going to show to the American public where you want to spend your money, and if you’re going to ask the hardworking taxpayer for more of their money, you first should lay out how you’re going to spend it, and you should eliminate any waste, so you don’t have to raise more taxes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But just to put a fine point on it, because it matters a lot to the markets in particular, you will avoid a default? You will not let that happen on your watch?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Look, there will not be a default.

But what is really irresponsible is what the Democrats are doing right now, saying you should just raise the limit.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But would you…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I think…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you get in the way — if 15 Republicans came to you and said they would be willing to raise the debt limit…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: The only person — but let me be very clear.

MARGARET BRENNAN: … would you allow them to do so with Democrats?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: The person — the only person who is getting in the way right now is the president and Schumer. They won’t even pass a budget. They won’t even negotiate. We have now until June.

I want to make sure we have something responsible, something that we can move forward on and something that we can balance our debt with. So I’m looking for sitting down. That’s exactly what I have been asking for. The only one who’s playing with the markets right now is the president to have the idea that he wouldn’t talk.

Does the president really believe and, really, all your viewers, do you believe there’s no waste in government? Do you believe there was no waste in that $1.7 trillion? That’s what we were spending just four weeks ago. So, I think the rational position here is, sit down, eliminate the waste and put us on a path to balance.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll watch for that meeting on Wednesday.

I want to ask you about your vision of leadership. You made a number of deals within your party to win the speakership. Senator Mitch McConnell, your Republican colleague, said: “Hopefully McCarthy was not so weakened by all this that he can’t be an effective speaker.”

How can you effectively govern with a very narrow majority and when your conference is so divided?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, that may be somebody else’s opinion. So let’s just see what my father always said. It’s not how you start. It’s how you finish.

So, let’s — you see what happened in the first week. So, in the very first week, we have passed what? We repealed the 87,000 IRS agents. We bipartisanly created a new Select Committee on China, where 146 Democrats joined with us.

We bipartisanly passed to stop the Strategic Petroleum Reserve being sold to China, where 113 Democrats joined with us. We have just now, for the first time on the House — it hasn’t happened in seven years, the entire time the Democrats were in the majority, where you had an open rule.

And let me explain what that is. An open rule allows every single member of the House to offer an amendment on a bill. So what I’m trying to do here is let every voice in America have their ability inside the House. We opened the House back up so the public could actually join.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you’re arguing you haven’t been weakened? But…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I — no, it’s only been strengthened.

Maybe people didn’t like what they saw that we didn’t win on the very first vote, but that was democracy. And what you found at the end of the day, we’re actually stronger.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I would…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: You know what else?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: We changed it where members of Congress now have to show up for work. I know, in the Senate, they don’t come very often.

But if you look what we’ve been able to do, we’re transforming Congress. We’re looking for solutions.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you also allowed one — just one member now can force a vote to oust you as speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: OK.

MARGARET BRENNAN: How can you expect to serve in the next two years in this role?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Exactly how every other speaker has served with that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Without those rules like that right now.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s a risk.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: OK.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I mean, do you really think you can control the Freedom Caucus and some of those more conservative members who gave you such a hard time?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Everybody has a voice.

But let me — let me explain that. That one vote to vacate, that’s not new. That’s been around for 100 years. The only person who took it away when they got a small majority was Nancy Pelosi. So, Nancy felt she did not have the power to stay in office if that was there. I’m very comfortable in where we are.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: So I don’t have any fear in that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You don’t regret any of the concessions you made?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: The only concession I made was taking it from five to one, where it’s been around for 100 years.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about some of the makeup of your caucus.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: According to CBS records, 70 percent of the House GOP members denied the results of the 2020 election.

You’ve put many of them on very key committees, Intelligence, Homeland Security, Oversight. Why are you elevating people who are denying reality like that?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, if you look to the Democrats, their ranking member, Raskin, had the same thing, denied Trump when Bush was in there. Bennie Thompson, who was the…

(CROSSTALK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: Did you see those numbers we just put up there?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Did you see the — yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Seventy percent.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Did you also be fair and equal and where you looked at Raskin did the same thing. Bennie Thompson, who’s a ranking member and was the chair?

These individuals were chair in the Democratic Party.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m asking you, as leader of Kevin McCarthy’s House…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But I’m also — I’m also…

MARGARET BRENNAN: … why you made these choices. These were your choices.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes, They’re my choices, but they’re the conference choices.

But I’m also asking you, when you look to see just Republicans, Democrats have done the same thing. So maybe it’s not denying. Maybe it’s the only opportunity they have to have a question about what went on during the election.

So, if you want to hold Republicans to that equation, why don’t you also hold Democrats? Why don’t you hold Jamie Raskin? Why don’t you hold Bennie Thompson, when Democrats had appointed them to be chair? I never once heard you ask Nancy Pelosi or any Democrat that question when they were in power in the majority, when they questioned…

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re talking about things going back to 2000, which was a time…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, you’re talking about…

MARGARET BRENNAN: … when I didn’t have this show back then…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: … which is why I’m asking you now about your leadership.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No, on, but they were — they were in power last Congress. So, why — why…

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you’re talking about questions from 2000 election.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But you’re asking me about that happened to another Congress.

MARGARET BRENNAN: About these choices you just made, you just made.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: You’re asking about questions for another Congress.

So, the only thing I’m simply…

MARGARET BRENNAN: This is your Congress.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: These — these are members who just got elected by their constituents, and we put them into committees, and I’m proud to do it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about some specifics then. Marjorie Taylor Greene, you put her on a new subcommittee to investigate the origins of COVID.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: She compared mask requirements to the type of abuse Jews were subjected to during the Holocaust. She called for Fauci to be arrested and imprisoned, and she spread conspiracy theories.

How is anyone supposed to take that work seriously and find that work credible?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Very well. You look at all of it, so you have all the questions out there. I think what the American public…

MARGARET BRENNAN: You think these are legitimate questions?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I think what the American public wants to see is an open dialogue in the process. This is a select committee where people can have all the questions they want, and you’ll see the outcome.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You know that there is a lot of doubt about institutions and faith in institutions in this country.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Oh, yes, when you saw what happened in Congress where they had proxy voting, where bills didn’t go through committees, and you…

(CROSSTALK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: I don’t think most people know what proxy voting is.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, let — well let — Well, let’s explain what proxy…

MARGARET BRENNAN: But — but approval…

(CROSSTALK)

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But I think it would be fair to your viewers…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Approval level, according to Gallup, of Congress is at 22 percent. Approval level of journalists is also not very high, I will give you that.

But doesn’t it further wear down credibility when you put someone who is under state, local, federal, and international investigation as a representative of your party on committees?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Are you talking about Swalwell?

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m talking about George Santos…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No, I…

MARGARET BRENNAN: … representative from New York.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, we should have that discussion. So let’s have that discussion.

You want to bring up Santos, and let’s talk about the institution itself, because I agree wholeheartedly that Congress is broken. And I think your — I think your listeners or viewers should understand what proxy voting was, because it never took place in Congress before.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But I’m asking you about George Santos.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I know you asked me a question. Let me ask you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because you could put it to a vote to try to oust him.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: You asked me a question. I would appreciate if you let me answer.

So let’s go through this, because it’s not one simple answer. Congress is broken, based upon what has transpired in the last Congress. The American public wasn’t able to come in to see us. People voted by proxy, meaning you didn’t have to show up for work, Bills didn’t go — have to go through committee.

So what I’m trying to do is open the people’s house back for the people so their voice is there, so people are held accountable.

So, now, as I just had in the last week, for the first time in seven years…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … every member got to vote.

MARGARET BRENNAN: If you got a third of your caucus to vote to oust him, you could do so.

(CROSSTALK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you — you don’t think you could get your Republicans to do that?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I wasn’t finished answering the question.

So, if every single new person brought into Congress was elected by their constituents, what their constituents have done is lend their voice to the American public. So those members can all serve on committee.

Now, what I’m trying to do is change some of these committees as well, like the Intel Committee is different than any other committee.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you’re just not going to answer the question I asked?

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, no, I — no, you don’t get a question whether I answer it. You asked a question. I’m trying to get you through that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I don’t think you’ve said the name George Santos, like, once.

(LAUGHTER)

MARGARET BRENNAN: I have asked you a few times.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But you know what? I just — but — but…

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re talking about proxy voting and other things.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No, no, no, but — no, you started the question with Congress was broken, and I agreed with you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: No. Congress…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But I was answering the question of how Congress is broken and how we’re changing it.

So, if I can finish the question that you asked me, how Congress is broken, I equated every single member…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … that just got elected by their — by their constituents. They have a right to serve.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: So that means that Santos can serve on a committee…

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … the same way Swalwell, who had a relationship with a Chinese spy.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Speaker…

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But they will not serve on Intel, because I think…

(CROSSTALK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: They’re wrapping me in the control room, because we have a break.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well that’s unfortunate. I wish I could answer the question.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I have to leave it there. I would love to have you back.

REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I would love to be able to come back and have time to answer the questions.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. We’ve spent a lot of time here, and I have more questions for you.

But I got to go.

Sunday Talks, SSCI Chair Warner and Vice-Chair Rubio Give Their Perspectives on Classified Document Issues and Control Operations


Posted originally on the CTH on January 29, 2023 | Sundance

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, SSCI, is the epicenter of the larger intelligence apparatus that controls government.  It was/is the SSCI who helped to create the weaponized system we call the Fourth Branch of Government.  The SSCI is the institutional origin where the outcomes of the FISA courts, domestic surveillance, and downstream consequences of the Patriot Act are supported and facilitated.

Because of their unique role in creating our national security state, where U.S. citizens are regarded as the potential threat to the interests of that state, the SSCI is a unique stakeholder in retaining the corrupt systems of domestic surveillance power.  No institution within the elected legislative branch of government has done more to destroy the freedom and constitutional protections within the U.S. than the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The intelligence community interacts with the SSCI with that benefactor/beneficiary alignment in mind.  This is why the SSCI claims such bipartisanship, and why the corporate media herald the SSCI as an important functional tool. Without the assistance of the SSCI, the U.S. domestic surveillance state could not exist.  When the IC feels threatened, they run to the SSCI for protection.

The chair (Warner) and vice-chair (Rubio) of the committee are also members of the Gang of Eight, intelligence oversight group.  It is laughable to see Senator Mark Warner decry the possibility of national security leaks and compromises within the classified document issue.  Warner himself was the most consequential leaker during the Trump-Russia investigation (Wolfe leak of FISA application), and the SSCI facilitated everything that happened in the Mueller investigation.  [WATCH, Transcript Below]

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Let’s start on the news of the moment. I know the two of you were briefed by the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines. Do you have any timeline in terms of when you will get visibility into the documents of classified material that both President Biden and President Trump had in their residences?

SEN. MARK WARNER: Margaret, unfortunately, no. And this committee has had a long bipartisan history of doing its job. And our job here is intelligence oversight. The Justice Department has had the Trump documents about six months, the Biden documents about three months, our job is not to figure out if somebody mishandled those, our job is to make sure there’s not an intelligence compromise.

And while the Director of National Intelligence had been willing to brief us earlier, now that you’ve got the special counsel, the notion that we’re going to be left in limbo, and we can’t do our job, that just cannot stand. And every member of the committee who spoke yesterday and I wanted the director to hear this, regardless of party said, we are united in we have to find a way to do our job. That means we need these documents, we need that assessment.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But the intelligence community would say their hands are tied, because this is an ongoing active Justice Department investigation. So what would meet the level of- of addressing your concerns without compromising that?

SEN. MARCO RUBIO: Well, I don’t know how congressional oversight on the documents, actually knowing what they are, in any way impedes an investigation. These are probably materials we already have access to. We just don’t know which ones they are. And it’s not about being nosy.

You know, here’s the bottom line: if in fact, those documents were very sensitive, materials were sensitive, and they pose a counterintelligence or national security threat to the United States, then the intelligence agencies are tasked with the job of coming up with ways to mitigate that. How can we judge whether their mitigation standards are appropriate, if we don’t have material to compare it against, and we can’t even make an assessment on whether they’ve properly risk assessed it?

So we’re not interested in the timeline, the tick-tock, the who got what, who did that? Those are criminal justice matters, to the extent that that’s what it is. That’s not what we’re interested in. We deserve and have a right and a duty to review what the materials were so we can have a better understanding of not just, you know, what the agency is doing about it, but whether it’s sufficient.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Does the director even know what the materials were?

SEN. WARNER: Well, we got a bit of vagueness on that because again, I believe you want to make sure the intelligence professionals and not political appointees were making some of that, that makes sense to me. But I would even think that if the- President Trump and President Biden would probably want to have this known if they say there’s no there there. Well, you know, there may still be violations on handling.

But we got to tell the American people and our colleagues, because we’re the only ones who have access to this information, that there’s not been an intelligence compromise. And again, this notion that when there was a special prosecutor appointed, they’re not exactly the same circumstances. But remember, this committee spent years doing the investigation into Russian meddling during the 2016 election, and there was a special prosecutor and Bob Mueller’s investigation going on simultaneously.

SEN. RUBIO: Let me tell you how absurd this is, there isn’t a day that goes by that there isn’t some media report about what was found where, what some sort of characterization of the material in the press. I just saw one this morning again. So somehow, the only people who are not allowed to know what was in there are congressional oversight committees.

But apparently, the media leaks out of the DOJ are unimpeded in terms of characterizing the nature of some of the materials that were found, plus whatever the individuals involved are telling the media. So it’s an untenable situation that I think has to be resolved.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But, you know, there’s an argument that there’s a diminishing value to intelligence over time, some of it’s time sensitive. The idea that some of these documents go all the way back to when President Biden was a senator, does that suggest that there’s something more than a problem in the executive branch?

SEN. WARNER: Agreed. That’s why the notion of ‘We’re not going to give the Oversight Committee the ability to do its job until the special prosecutor somehow says it’s OK,’ doesn’t- doesn’t hold water. That’s not going to stand with all the members of Congress–

MARGARET BRENNAN: So do you want to see these 300 documents from Trump?

SEN. WARNER: I think we need to see- chances are, we have a right as not only members of the Intelligence Committee, but as part of the leadership to read virtually every classified document. We’re part of the so-called Gang of Eight. We may have seen these documents, we just need to know, are these the ones that were potentially mishandled, and that mishandling is not our responsibility, our responsibility is to make sure the intelligence and the security of the United States have been compromised. And you’re absolutely right that some of these may have been years old.

So this idea that we’re not going to get that access just, again, we all agreed, and I think the director heard lot- loud and clear from all of us. It’s just not tenable. And it begs the bigger question and again, which Marco and I have agreed to jointly work on, that we got- we got a problem in terms of both classification levels, how senior elected officials, when they leave government how they handle documents. We’ve had too many examples of this. And again, I think we’ve got the bipartisan bona fides, to say, let’s put them in place on a going forward basis, a better process.

SEN. RUBIO: And let me just add on the age of the documents, it’s true, the information in and of itself may be dated and irrelevant at this point. But the- but having access to that information reveals how you gathered, whether it was a human source or–

SEN. WARNER: Sources and methods.

SEN. RUBIO: And so the- the- even though the information itself might no longer be very relevant, it does reveal how we collect information and thereby cost us those accesses and potentially cost someone you know, again, we don’t know what’s in the material, potentially put someone in harm’s way.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you- you threatened to withhold some funding to some of the agencies yesterday.

SEN. RUBIO: Well, what I said is that, you know, I’m not in the threat business right now. But we certainly are- there are things we need to do as a committee every year to authorize the moving around of funds. I think the Director of National Intelligence and other heads of intelligence agencies are aware of that.

You know, at some point, I’d prefer for them just to call us this morning or tomorrow or whenever and say, ‘Look, this is the arrangement that we think we can reach so that the overseers can get access to this.’ I’d prefer not to go down that road. But it’s one of the pieces of leverage we have as Congress. I’m not, we’re not going to sit here and just issue press releases all day.

SEN. WARNER: And one of the things that I wanted Director Haines to hear and I think she was in a bit of an untenable position yesterday, she had been willing to brief earlier before the special prosecutor. I wanted her to hear that this was not just Senator Rubio and I, this was all of the members of the committee, on both ends of the political spectrum, saying, we’ve got a job to do, we’re going to do it, we’re going to figure out- we’re not in the threat business. But we’re going to figure out a way to make sure that we get that access so that we can not only tell the American people, but we’ve got another 85 U.S. senators who are not on the Intelligence Committee, who look to us to get those assurances.

MARGARET BRENNAN: How much are your hands tied, though, in terms of this part of government and classified- classification really being over in the executive to a large extent? Like, what is it that you as lawmakers can do? Is it new regulation when it comes to transitions–

SEN. WARNER: The Director of National Intelligence is the individual that’s the chief officer for intelligence classification. I think, and there’s been a number of other members of the Senate, both parties have been working for years, on the notion that we over classify the number of things that we read in a SCIF that somehow then appear in the newspaper begs the question, it’s kind of been an issue that’s been bubbling for a long time–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Over classification.

SEN. WARNER: –I think this, I think this series of events, pushes it to the forefront. And again, we have the power to write legislation, which then executive agencies have to follow–

MARGARET BRENNAN: In terms of record keeping.

SEN. WARNER: In terms of record keeping. In terms, literally, at least guidance on classification issues. I mean, there has been, and again, this Director of National Intelligence, I’m going to give her credit, she has been at least acknowledging and long before this issue came up, said we need to work on this issue of declassification, over classification. Every director says it, and then it kind of gets pushed- pushed back, I think. One good thing that may come out of this is that we’re going to find a way to resolve this issue on a going forward basis.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So it sounds like we found one area of bipartisan agreement already here that there needs to be some kind of legislation around classified materials–

(CROSSTALK)

SEN. WARNER: I actually think you’re gonna find a lot- on our committee –

SEN. RUBIO: On our committee–

SEN. WARNER: –you’re gonna find an awful lot more than one.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Where does this rank in terms of priority? Dealing with the classified crisis?

SEN. WARNER: Well the immediacy of it right now, and the notion and again, I would- I don’t know what President Trump and President Biden are thinking about this. But I would think they would like some recognition that these documents, hopefully and as Marco said, are not disclosing sources and methods, are not so current that there may be a- a violation of American national security. We just don’t know.

So I think we need to get this resolved sooner than later. In terms of the specific case, the Trump and Biden documents, we’ve not really focused as much on the Pence documents. But who knows what additional shoes may fall.

SEN. RUBIO: Yeah, and I don’t want to speak for Mark. Obviously, the immediacy of this moment is big. But I think we- the- on the broader set of issues, we still have this reauthorization of [Section] 702, an important authority for our government.

And then more broadly, I just think the world looks so different than it did when I started out in this committee. When I first got to the Senate, the principal focus of foreign policy and national security issues were counterterrorism. And those are still very important, but we’re now in a world increasingly revolves around great power competition: China, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and then some of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea and other rogue states.

So whether our intelligence agencies have adjusted quickly enough to that new reality, and- and the- and the- obligations that poses I think, is from a big picture perspective, in my mind, one of the things we really have to spend time on.

SEN. WARNER: And the thing that I think we’re getting- our committee has got some- some record on. I mean, I personally believe the competition, technology competition, in particular, with China is the issue of our time. And remember, it was this committee that first spotted, pointed out, the problems with the Chinese telecommunications provider, Huawei, as a national security threat.

And we built, frankly, even under President Trump, an approach to say we need to make sure that we get it out of our networks, and then convince our allies to do that. It was our committee, again, who first pointed out the challenges that, in the semiconductor industry, which we had dominated in this country–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Computer chips–

SEN. WARNER: In the- computer chips- in the 80s, and 90s, that we were falling behind, literally to the point that no cutting edge semiconductor chip was even being made in America. And we built them, the legislation around the so-called CHIPS bill.

I think there are other technology domains: artificial intelligence, quantum computing, advanced energy, synthetic biology, where we need to do the similar kind of bipartisan deep dives, to say, how do we make sure America and our friends stay competitive with a China that is extraordinarily aggressive in these fields and making the kind of investments, frankly, that we used to make post-Sputnik?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, and I want to ask you about that, because President Biden is reportedly close to issuing an executive order when it comes to restrictions on U.S. investments in- in China. But there’s concern about risking further escalation. What’s your view on how far that action should go? And where do you all pick up in terms of lawmakers?

SEN. RUBIO: Well, I think there’s two things. The first is the Chinese have found a way to use capitalism against us. As- as- and what I mean by that is the ability to attract investment into entities that are deeply linked to the state. That military commercial fusion that exists in China is a concept that we don’t have in this country. We have contractors that do defense work, but there is no distinction in China between advancements in technology, biomedicine, whatever it might be, and the interest of the state.

And then the second is obviously the access to our capital markets. And the third is the risk posed, we don’t up to this point, have not had levels of transparency in terms of auditing and the like, on these investments of- the- into these companies. What- when you invest in these companies in U.S. exchanges, you don’t have nearly as much information about the- the bookkeeping of those companies as you would an American company or European company, because they’ve refused to comply with those restrictions.

So there’s systemic risk to our investments, and then there’s also the geopolitical reality that American capital flows are helping to fund activities that are ultimately designed to undermine our national security. So it’s a 21st century challenge that we really have to put our arms around.

SEN. WARNER: And again, this is something- I think and I fall under this category, beginning of the 20th century, I was a big believer that the more you bring China into the world order, the more things will all be copacetic. We were just wrong on that.

The Communist Party, under President Xi’s leadership, and my beef is, to be clear, with the Communist Party, it’s not with the Chinese people or the Chinese diaspora wherever it is in the world, but they basically changed the rules of the road. They made clear in Chinese law that every company in China’s ultimate responsibility is to the Communist Party, not to their customers, not to their shareholders. We’ve seen at- at the level of 500 billion dollars a year of intellectual property theft. We have actually in a bipartisan way- over the- didn’t get a lot of attention- over the last seven years, have been out and we’ve done 20 classified briefings for industry sector, after industry sector, about these risks. Frankly, pre-COVID, we kind of got nods, but you know, some pushback because a lot of companies are making–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because companies just wanted access to the market regardless of the risk–

SEN. WARNER: Were making a lot of- were making a lot of money off Chinese tech companies.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Exactly. Exactly.

SEN. WARNER: Now, post-COVID, I think there is an awakening that this is a real challenge and I think the good news is that not only is there awakening, you know, in America, but a lot of our allies around the world are seeing this threat as well. So I think, you know, we need to build this kind of international coalition, because the technology- who wins these technology domains, I think will win the race in the 21st century.

SEN. RUBIO: I- I think those–

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you want restrictions on biotech, battery technology, semiconductors, artificial intelligence?

SEN. WARNER: I want to have an approach that says we need to look at foreign technology investments, foreign technology development, regardless of the country, if it poses a national security threat, and have some place that can evaluate this. We kind of do this ad hoc at this point. You know, we- we- years back, there was a Russian software company, Kaspersky. Again, Marco was one of the first ones who said, ‘My gosh, we got to get this off the GSA acquisition list.’ We worked together on Huawei, I’m sure we’re going to talk about TikTok. We need a frame to systemically look at this. And frankly, if it goes just beyond the so-called CFIUS legislation about inbound or outbound investment.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s a committee that looks at national security risks.

SEN. RUBIO: But understanding that for- you know, 20 years ago, everybody thought capitalism was going to change China. And we woke up to realization that capitalism didn’t change China, China changed capitalism. And they’ve used it to their advantage and to our disadvantage. And not simply from an old Soviet perspective to take us on from a geopolitical or military perspective, they’ve done so from a technological and industrial perspective. And so you have seen the largest theft and transfer of intellectual property in the history of humanity occur over the last 15 years, some of it funded by American taxpayers. That has to stop. It’s undermining our national security, and giving them an unfair advantage and these gains that they’re making.

SEN. WARNER: And let me just echo- you know- I’m old enough to remember- you know, the challenges with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was an ideological threat, and a military threat. It really was never a first class, economic threat. China, we have ideological differences. They have a growing military, but domain after domain, they are a- right with us in certain areas, even ahead of us, in this kind of technology, on much. And I agree with Marco again, the ability to kind of manipulate our system, the kind of combination of command and control with certain tenets of capitalism. They have an authoritarian capitalism that for awhile worked pretty well. I don’t think it works as well as our long-term system. But we have to inform all of our industry and frankly, all our allies about this challenge.

MARGARET BRENNAN: They have the biggest hacking ability program than any other nation. Intelligence community says they’re the world leader in surveillance, in censorship. How restricted should their ability to access this market be?

SEN. RUBIO: Let me put it to you this way, I think it is nearly impossible for any Chinese company to comply with both Chinese law and our expectations in this country. Chinese law is very clear. If you’re a Chinese company, and we ask you for your data, we ask you for your information, we ask you for what you have, or we ask you to do something, you either do it, or you won’t be around. (continue reading)

More Russian Sanction = World War III


Armstrong Economics Blog/Russia Re-Posted Jan 29, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

For the life of me, there is absolutely no logic to any of this attack on Russia except the desire to conquer and destroy it as any sort of a superpower or independent nation-state. Every President always sought peace until Biden who seems to be reading the cur cards for Armageddon. Even Henry Kissinger said every president has invited him to the White House EXCEPT Biden.

Even if we assume that the sanctions worked and forced Putin to withdraw from protecting the Russians in the Donbas whom the West had all agreed were entitled to their human rights and self-determination with the fake Minsk Agreement, what would happen in the political crisis in Russia? We confiscated all Japanese assets, put energy embargoes on them, and threaten to prevent them from dealing with any other country for energy. Roosevelt did everything he could to get Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Biden has done the same to Russia.

The risk of overthrowing Putin would lead to a potential civil war and the further breakup of Russia with more nukes than the West. Of the 14,500 nuclear weapons on the planet, Russia and the United States own the lion’s share, with a combined total of approximately 13,350 nukes. The remaining 1,150 weapons are held by seven countries. The USA has 6,500 nukes and Russia has 6,800. Destabilizing Russia is just insane. Russia will wipe out Europe in the blink of an eye if pushed and they now know that this Ukraine bullshit is really a war of the USA and NATO against Russia and we are the aggressors.

I can say that US troops have been told that we will be at war with China by next year.

All my sources are saying that the Biden Administration is DOMINATED by inexperienced climate zealots who are demanding we have no time to wait and we MUST end fossil fuels NOW before there are any alternatives in place. They are the ones pushing to destroy Russia which is embraced by the Neocons, all because the majority of their GDP is all fossil fuels.

The sanctions now are imposed by the European Union and will ban imports of refined Russian fuels on February 5th, 2023, adding to its embargo on seaborne Russian crude oil that began in December. The EU is putting its entire future and the lives of ALL its population at risk for the Donbas which has been occupied by Russians for centuries and two former Russian leaders came from that region. It was Khrushchev who drew the border within the USSR purely for administrative purposes. That region was never occupied by Ukrainians.

There is no difference if Mexico had demanded Texas and everyone who lives there must surrender their language and their religion to fit the norm of being Mexican. Then Texans have no right to vote on their future. The entire Minsk Agreement has been a joke. It was a deliberate ploy to buy time for war. This has now confirmed to both China and Russia that the United States and Europe cannot be trusted. Treaties mean absolutely nothing! this stupid ploy has opened the door for World War III because there is no point negotiating with the EU, Germany, France, or the United States when they will not HONOR their agreements. That means there can be no resolution!

That leaves only All Out War to the Death

But hey! There will be new business opportunities as well. Just think of the guided tours to show how foolish these mortals have been. There will be plenty of nuked cities to explore. The good news, we will exterminate all the climate change zealots who insisted on destroying Russia. Yet it may be up to us to prevent the politicians from crawling out of their safe underground bunkers to the new light of CO2 free world after they killed off all those nasty trees and plants that need CO2 to survive. They say the one bug that will survive a nuclear attack is cockroaches. I guess that’s why we are supposed to eat bugs now.

Twitter File Release #15 – Hamilton 68 Group Labels Counter Opinions “Russians”, Corporate Media Amplified, But Twitter Could Not Find Evidence


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on January 28, 2023 | Sundance 

Twitter File release #15 is presented by Matt Taibbi and covers the vast Russian conspiracy as promoted by the media in 2018 and beyond. [SEE HERE]

As noted within the email discussion viewed by Taibbi, feeding the media narrative was a very specific group known as Hamilton 68, “headed by former FBI counterintelligence official (and current MSNBC contributor) Clint Watts, and funded by a neoliberal think tank, the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD).”

[Twitter File Release #15 HERE]

The entire assertion presented by Hamilton 68 and ASD was bogus, and Twitter executives knew it all along.  At first, Twitter tried to push back, telling the media there was no evidence to support the claims of the Hamilton 68 group.  However, the corporate media desperately wanted the Vast Russian Conspiracy to be true, so they disregarded the analysis done by the team at Twitter and kept pushing the lies.

As Taibbi notes, “The secret ingredient to Hamilton 68’s analytical method? A list: “Our analysis has linked 600 Twitter accounts to Russian influence activities online.” Eventually the people at Twitter figured out what methods Hamilton 68 was using and found the account list on their own.  However, there still was no reason to believe the accounts H68 identified were Russian.  In fact, almost all were just regular Americans who did not believe the Vast Russian Collusion Conspiracy.

In layman’s terms, the Hamilton 68 barely had any Russians. In fact, apart from a few RT accounts, it’s mostly full of ordinary Americans, Canadians, and British,” Taibbi explains. “It was a scam. Instead of tracking how “Russia” influenced American attitudes, Hamilton 68 simply collected a handful of mostly real, mostly American accounts, and described their organic conversations as Russian scheming,” Taibbi continued.

Regardless of how much factual evidence was assembled, no one in the media would respond to the Hamilton 68 claims by telling the truth.  They all feared the left wing Alliance for Security Democracy and maintained the pretense to avoid being on the wrong side of their ideological peers.

The Vast Russian Conspiracy, with its origins in the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign team, continues to this day.  After the success of fabricating something out of literally nothing, the weaponized systems within the public-private partnership of government and media have grown even more bold.

With the DHS/FBI portal within Twitter, and likely within all social media, now being openly discussed and mainstreamed, it’s worth revisiting an August 2021 tripwire crossed by DHS and then contemplating how that was influenced by a much larger ideological agenda.

The United States Department of Homeland Security made a quiet and alarming announcement on August 13, 2021, creating the official position of the United States Government under the Joe Biden regime. [SEE DHS STATEMENT HERE]  According to the statement, if you questioned the orthodoxy of government mandates, or COVID-19 responses from the U.S. government, you were -effective immediately- considered a “terrorist”, specifically a “Domestic Violent Extremist” (DVE).

Most people missed this remarkable development, yet it seemed to underpin a tenuous, unstable and fragile disposition of the current administration.  Within this continuation of the Obama-era initiatives, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seemed rather paranoid in their need to label anyone who would question the COVID-19 response.

Considering the polling at the time, more than half the country would be defined as dissidents and domestic terrorists within our homeland.  Think about that.

DHS – The Secretary of Homeland Security has issued a new National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin regarding the current heightened threat environment across the United States. […] These threats include those posed by domestic terrorists, individuals and groups engaged in grievance-based violence. […] Such threats are also exacerbated by impacts of the ongoing global pandemic, including grievances over public health safety measures and perceived government restrictions. (read more)

Notice the wording of that introductory paragraph.  The government-imposed mandates, mask and vaccination requirements were only “perceived government restrictions.”

The chains that bound your expressions of liberty and freedom were essentially being defined as mere figments of your imagination.  The rules and denials of activity that we are forced to live by, under the auspices of “public health and safety measures“, were described as perceived demands.

Most people missed this inflection point, but it was a substantive change in messaging from the United States Government.

The needle then being forced into the arm of federal workers by the Federal Government was not the problem.

It was the public perception of a forced medical treatment, and the need to control that perception that became the priority of the Dept of Homeland Security.

It was our perception of what they are doing that became the problem as outlined in this DHS bulletin.  Here is where you must overlay the Twitter File revelations about the action the government took as an outcome of that shift.  What followed in the censorship/control of social media by the same government agency, DHS, was an outcome of this ideological moment.

In essence, We the People must correct our wrong thoughts to eliminate carrying ‘the wrong perception’.  Dear leader appreciates your compliance.  At the time, CTH noted to all readers the DHS statement was full blown Stazi-level propaganda.  The bulletin continues:

[…] Through the remainder of 2021, racially- or ethnically-motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) and anti-government/anti-authority violent extremists will remain a national threat priority for the United States. These extremists may seek to exploit the emergence of COVID-19 variants by viewing the potential re-establishment of public health restrictions across the United States as a rationale to conduct attacks. Pandemic-related stressors have contributed to increased societal strains and tensions, driving several plots by domestic violent extremists, and they may contribute to more violence this year.

[…] There are also continued, non-specific calls for violence on multiple online platforms associated with DVE ideologies or conspiracy theories on perceived election fraud and alleged reinstatement, and responses to anticipated restrictions relating to the increasing COVID cases. (link)

This became the official position of the United States Government toward citizens in our nation.  It is from this perspective that outreach and instructions to Twitter and various social media platforms originated.

Hopefully, in hindsight, you can see the importance of that narrative shift and how it ended with real consequences amid the speech platforms.

However, I want to move deeper, beyond that moment in 2021, deeper into the context that had taken hold of the various apparatus of government institutions.  Back to that moment when the shift in approach became evident, albeit ignored for its consequence.

Immediately after Barack H. Obama was successfully installed in office, something began to shift.  While the U.S. media had always been biased, manipulative and dishonest, there was something bigger and deeper that changed after The Lightbringer achieved power and began his process of fundamental change.

The shift in the national security deployment, coincided with the merge between the intelligence apparatus and the new platforms of social media.  The speed of the shift was directly connected to the speed of technology that was driving communication.

Together the intelligence apparatus, the customary U.S. media and Big Tech began testing how far and how fast they could control the outlook of Americans.  Few people were paying attention to it…. there were some… but not many, and most of those who did notice were not connecting the dots to the actual tests.

The shift in attack direction from media (social and traditional) was alarming.

Normally the bias we encountered was framed to excuse or justify the transparently guilty of accountability.  Bad people doing bad things were downplayed, excused and defended.  However, in 2011 & 2012, the new era of controlling public opinion took shape and the system partners began falsely accusing the transparently innocent.

Read that again, because it was a profound difference, and inflection point.

Public opinion propaganda shifted from excusing the transparently guilty, to framing the transparently innocent.

Together with ideological institutions in government (Obama’s crew ie. DOJ etc.), the customary U.S. media and Big Tech system control operators began testing how far and fast they could control the outlook of Americans… to accuse the transparently innocent

Some transparently innocent examples included, George Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin), Police Officer Darren Wilson (Mike Brown), the Baltimore Six accused (Freddy Gray), Nick Sandmann, Kile Rittenhouse, and then ultimately the biggest example, Donald J. Trump.  Take a transparently innocent person, and manipulate a public narrative to make them guilty.

In combination with this new use of the public-private partnership to target the transparently innocent, the social media platforms were instructed to remove content that ran counter to the false presentations.

Now, fast forward throughout a decade of the ideological shift (2011 to 2021) and what did the 2021 DHS terrorism bulletin do?

It expanded the targeting of the transparently innocent.

Instead of specific targets based on personage, the system of collaboration and control by DHS now extended to a whole of government effort to define people as ‘domestic terrorists.’  This is one long continuum of targeting the transparently innocent.

The target holds the same ideas, outlooks, worldviews, and expectations of liberty and freedom they held yesterday, last week, last month and perhaps even long before 9-11-01.  However, now you are the problem.  You are guilty. You are an extremist.

You didn’t change at all. Something else changed.  But notice how the spotlight on what changed is YOU, and not the origin of the change?

You are the problem. It’s not the fault of those fundamentally changing the structures of freedom or liberty, you shifted to become the guilty party.

Returning to the Twitter File #15 documents, your unwillingness to support the approved government position, made you a “Russian.”

Can you see how they did that?

Can you see how the cancer cells of beta-test accusations against the transparently innocent metastasized and weaponized into a system that now uses the institutions of government against all of us, against the average American who might not accept the specific demands of government, ie. mask wearing, vaccinations, etc.

This government effort, a continuation of a narrative engineering strategy that originated in the aftermath of Obama’s election, specifically included the weaponization of social media and the compliance of the system operators who controlled Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Microsoft, YouTube, etc.

How can we help people to see this?

.

Deep Triggered, The CIA and Intelligence Community are Very Worried About the House Subcommittee on Federal Government Weaponization


Posted originally on the CTH on January 28, 2023 | Sundance 

The website Just Security, author former CIA operative Douglas Johnson, is very concerned about the House Subcommittee on Federal Government Weaponization. [SEE ARTICLE HERE} The concern is clouded under the auspices of fearing politicization by questioning the intelligence community about weaponized government.

The article is a mainstream bureaucratic outlook where the professional intelligence apparatus views themselves as beyond being accountable to the elected public officials, specifically the House members of the committee. The permanent unelected officials have a self-perception above the reach of the elected officials.

In essence, there is no public accountability model within their view of their operation. There can only be concealment, secret briefings, darkness and ‘trust us’ type reviews of their authorities. It’s quite a remarkable thing to read.

Just Security […] that’s oversight, a bipartisan endeavor conducted in the interest of all Americans, regardless of political affiliation. The oversight structure that came from the Church Committee investigations adopted legal and sensible rules of the road and protections for all stakeholders. Such supervision is conducted in controlled settings, shielded from public exposure, in a way that promotes candor and trust among both the auditors and the audited, facilitating transparency.

Note: How has that worked out for the American people?

[…] Jordan’s committee will not be oversight. Rather, it promises to be the very politicized weapon it claims interest in exposing. The body’s spectacle and powers pose dangerous implications for the ability of the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement communities to effectively conduct their mission.

[…] The greatest danger, though, is the impact on these communities’ protection from political pressure. Professionals dedicated to national service will have to assess the risks of telling it like it is and speaking truth to power. Even those at the bottom of the professional ladder might find themselves having to lawyer up and consider the prospect of subsequent purges depending on who is in office. (read full)

Why would the CIA, FBI or any Intelligence Community member, who works for the American taxpayer, need to “lawyer up” if they are doing nothing unlawful, unconstitutional, or illegal against the interests of the taxpayers who fund them?

REMINDER – Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; the institutions were already weaponized by the Patriot Act.  What Obama and Holder did was take the preexisting system and retool it, so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.

This point is where many people understandably get confused.

Elevator Speech:

(1) The Patriot Act turned the intel surveillance radar from foreign searches for terrorists to domestic searches for terrorists.

(2) Obama/Biden then redefined what is a “terrorist” to include their political opposition.

DEEP DIVE:

Twitter is to the U.S. government as TikTok is to China. The overarching dynamic is the need to control public perceptions and opinions.

DHS has been in ever increasing control of Twitter since the public-private partnership was formed in 2011/2012.  However, it’s not just Twitter.  The same fundamental relationships are now at work within Google, Microsoft, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook.

With all the shiny things surfacing from the Twitter Files, few are looking at the origin of what the government is trying to keep hidden….

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

After 9/11/01, the electronic surveillance system that was originally created to monitor threats from abroad was retooled to monitor threats inside our country.  That is when all of our electronic ‘metadata’ came under federal surveillance.

That inflection point, and the process that followed, was exactly what Edward Snowden tried to point out.

What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their political opposition became the target of this new national security system.

The problems we face now as a country are directly an outcome of two very distinct points that were merged by Barack Obama. (1) The post 9/11 monitoring of electronic communication of American citizens, and (2) Obama’s team creating a fine-tuning knob that it focused on the politics of the targets.  This is very important to understand as you dig deeper into this research outline.

Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01.  The Department of Homeland Security came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was formed.

When President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.

The preexisting Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Dept of Justice (DOJ) were then repurposed to become two of the four pillars of the domestic national security apparatus: a domestic surveillance state. However, this new construct would have a targeting mechanism based on political ideology.

The DHS, ODNI, DOJ and FBI became the four pillars of this new institution. Atop these pillars is where you will find the Fourth Branch of Government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We begin….

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

Things to note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factually, the modern intelligence apparatus uses checks and balances in their favor. The checks create silos of proprietary information, classified information, vaults of information that work around oversight issues. The silos, which include the exploitation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court, or FISC) are part of the problem.

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

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

However, the creation of the DNI office also created an unconstitutional surveillance system of the American people.  The DNI office became the tool to take massive amounts of data and use it to target specific Americans.  Weaponizing the DNI office for political targeting is now the purpose of the DNI office as it exists.

The illegal and unlawful nature of the surveillance creates a need for careful protection amid the group who operate in the shadows of electronic information and domestic surveillance. You will see how it was critical to install a person uniquely skilled in being an idiot, James Clapper, into that willfully blind role while intelligence operatives worked around the office to assemble the Intelligence Branch of Government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully, you can see a small part of how tentacled the system to organize/weaponize the intelligence apparatus was. None of this was accidental, all of this was by design, and the United States Senate was responsible for intentionally allowing most of this to take place.  The tools the government used to monitor threats were now being used to monitor every American.  WE THE PEOPLE were now the threat the national security system was monitoring.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Geithner was Treasury Secretary in 2010 when the joint DOJ/FBI and IRS operation to target the Tea Party took place after the midterm “shellacking” caused by the Obamacare backlash. Mitch McConnell was Minority Leader in the Senate but supported the targeting of the Tea Party as his Senate colleagues were getting primaried by an angry and effective grassroots campaign. McConnell’s friend, Senator Bob Bennett, getting beaten in Utah was the final straw.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, how quickly we forget:

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

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

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

Through the advice and consent rules, the Intelligence Branch uses the SSCI to keep out people they consider dangerous to their ongoing operations. Any appointee to the intelligence community must first pass through the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, before they get a full Senate vote. If the SSCI rejects the candidate, they simply refuse to take up the nomination. The president is then blocked from that appointment. This is what happened with President Trump over and over again.

• Additionally, the Intelligence Branch protects itself, and its facilitating allies through the formal classification process. The Intelligence Branch gets to decide unilaterally what information will be released and what information will be kept secret. There is no entity outside the Intelligence Branch, and yes that includes the President of the United States, who can supersede the classification authority of the Intelligence Branch. {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} This is something 99.9% of the people on our side get totally and frustratingly wrong.

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

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

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

• Similarly, the declassification process is a request by an agency, even a traditionally superior agency like the President of the United States, to the Intelligence Branch asking for them to release the information. The Intelligence Branch again holds full unilateral control.

If the head of the CIA refuses to comply with the declassification instruction of the President, what can the president do except fire him/her? {Again, GO DEEPHow does the President replace the non-compliant cabinet member? They have to go through the SSCI confirmation. See the problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~ 2021 Gang of Eight ~

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, no one saw the immediate issue. What Comey just described on that March Day in 2017 was the usurpation of the entire reason the Gang of Eight exists; to eliminate the potential for political weaponization of the Intelligence Community by the executive branch. The G08 notifications to the majority and minority are specifically designed to make sure what James Comey admitted to doing was never supposed to happen.

Team Obama carried out a political operation using the intelligence community and the checks-and-balances in the system were intentionally usurped. This is an indisputable fact.

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

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

This example highlights the collapse of the system. Obama, the Executive Branch, collapsed the system by usurping the process; in essence the process became the bigger issue, and the lack of immediate Legislative Branch reaction became evidence of open acceptance. The outcomes of the usurpation played out over the next four years, Donald J. Trump was kneecapped and lost his presidency because of it. However, the bigger issue of the collapse still exists.

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

That’s where we are.

Right now.

That’s where we are.

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

NOTE: Former Obama National Security aide and counsel to the President, Lisa Monaco, is in her current position as Deputy Attorney General, specifically to make sure all of these revelations do not become a legal risk to Barack Obama and the people who created them.  The SSCI confirmed Monaco for this purpose because the Senate is just as much at risk.

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

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

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

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

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

There are only two members of the Gang of Eight who have existed in place from January 2007 (the real beginning of Obama’s term, two years before he took office when the Congress flipped). Only two members of the G08 have been consistently in place from January of 2007 to right now, today. All the others came and went, but two members of the Gang of Eight have been part of that failed and collapsed oversight throughout the past 15 years, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From that point it is then critical to understand that domestic intelligence operations are underway to monitor the electronic communication of American citizens inside our own country.  YOU are under surveillance.  The parents who confront school boards are under surveillance.  The political operatives inside the FBI are monitoring everyone who comes onto the radar, that is why the National School Boards Association asked the White House, then the DOJ, to have the FBI start targeting parents.  Are things making sense now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The influence of the Intelligence Branch now reaches into our lives, our personal lives.

[The Intercept] – […] Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the U.S. government has used its power to try to shape online discourse. According to meeting minutes and other records appended to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican who is also running for Senate, discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information.

“Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain,” Microsoft executive Matt Masterson, a former DHS official, texted Jen Easterly, a DHS director, in February.

In a March meeting, Laura Dehmlow, an FBI official, warned that the threat of subversive information on social media could undermine support for the U.S. government. Dehmlow, according to notes of the discussion attended by senior executives from Twitter and JPMorgan Chase, stressed that “we need a media infrastructure that is held accountable.” (read more)

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

[…]  The extent to which the DHS initiatives affect Americans’ daily social feeds is unclear. During the 2020 election, the government flagged numerous posts as suspicious, many of which were then taken down, documents cited in the Missouri attorney general’s lawsuit disclosed. And a 2021 report by the Election Integrity Partnership at Stanford University found that of nearly 4,800 flagged items, technology platforms took action on 35 percent — either removing, labeling, or soft-blocking speech, meaning the users were only able to view content after bypassing a warning screen. The research was done “in consultation with CISA,” the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

Prior to the 2020 election, tech companies including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Verizon Media met on a monthly basis with the FBI, CISA, and other government representatives. According to NBC News, the meetings were part of an initiative, still ongoing, between the private sector and government to discuss how firms would handle misinformation during the election. (keep reading)

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.  Simultaneously the mission of the intelligence community now encompassed monitoring domestic threats as defined by the people who operate the surveillance system.

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 network of President Barack Obama did.

The Obama network took preassembled intelligence weapons (we should never have allowed to be created) and turned those FBI, DOJ-NSD, DHS and ODNI weapons into political tools for his radical and fundamental change. The target was the essential fabric of our nation.

Ultimately, this corrupt political process gave power to create the Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch and a massive nationwide surveillance state. From that perspective, the fundamental change was successful.

This is the scale of corrupt political compromise on both sides of the DC dynamic that we are up against.  Preserving this surveillance system, a public-private partnership, is also what removing Donald Trump was all about.  The targeting of President Trump in order to preserve the system; the system that was weaponized during the Obama administration, is what the actions of the DOJ, FBI and DHS are all about.

What would powerful people in DC do to stop the American people from finding this out?

A controlled 2020 election?  An increased censorship in the aftermath?  A raid on Mar-a-Lago?

…The need for control is a reaction to fear.

President Trump Remarks During Lynette “Diamond” Hardaway Celebration – Video


Posted originally on the CTH on January 22, 2023 | Sundance 

President Donald J Trump delivered remarks yesterday during the celebration of life for Lynette “Diamond” Hardaway {Direct Rumble Link}.

Delivering remarks in his authentic style, President Trump delivered a mostly ad lib speech to celebrate the life of Diamond and the joy she delivered to all around her.  While interplaying personal anecdotes about the time they spent together, President Trump overlays the positive impact of both Diamond and Silk amid the cultural and political dynamics of the day.  WATCH: