Jun 15 2022

The immunological rationale against C-19 vaccination of children, Part I

Published originally on TrialSite News on April 20, 2022

General Manager at Voice for Science and Solidarity | The biggest challenge in vaccinology: Countering immune evasion

Table of content

Key message
Innate immunity: The child’s guardian angel
There is no better example of how human immune intervention defies natural immunity than C-19 vaccination in children
Children are particularly susceptible to immunological side-effects of the C-19 vaccines
Vaccination of children in particular drives immune escape and dramatically diminishes the chance for generating herd immunity
Omicron serves as an excellent live attenuated vaccine in healthy unvaccinated children. Vaccinating them with any of the current C-19 vaccines will only further increase instead of mitigating the selective immune pressure exerted by highly vaccinated populations and unquestionably take away the last glimmer of hope for generating herd immunity
No single healthy child should be considered eligible for C-19 vaccination, neither from a public nor from an individual health viewpoint
Summary and overall conclusion

Key message:

When a deep understanding of immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, and molecular biology is applied to analysis of whether children should receive current vaccines against COVID-19 (C-19), it is concluded that recommendation of such vaccination is scientifically unsound and that such vaccination is harmful to individual children, children as a group, and Humanity as a whole, for the following reasons:

children have an abundant population of innate B cells that are capable of rapidly producing innate/ natural antibodies (Abs), mostly of IgM isotype, and that are highly adaptable to a broad and diversified spectrum of antigens or pathogenic agents. Innate Abs can facilitate cell-mediated killing of host cells infected with Coronaviruses (CoVs), including all SC-2 variants, independently of previous immune priming by antigen/pathogen encounters.
innate immunity can be trained such as to acquire memory and, therefore, improve the host’s innate immune defense upon future exposure to more infectious variants that may emerge during an epidemic or pandemic.
the C-19 vaccines undermine the innate immune system—by, for example, hindering binding of innate, low-affinity antibodies and by interfering with the normal training of a child’s innate immune system.
By priming specific vaccine-induced immunity instead of exploiting the host’s pre-existing natural multi-specific immune defense, the C-19 vaccines prevent the development of optimal, sterilizing immunity in vaccinees.
Whereas natural immunity (i.e., innate Ab-mediated killer cell immunity combined with neutralizing S(pike)-specific Abs acquired upon recovery from natural disease) contributes to generating herd immunity during a pandemic/ epidemic, neutralizing, S-specific vaccinal Abs do not. Since the vaccine prevents the development of optimal, sterilizing natural immunity, C-19 vaccines prevent the vaccinated child from contributing to building herd immunity during a SARS-CoV-2 (SC-2) pandemic.
Since unvaccinated children’s immune systems contribute to the development of herd immunity against CoVs, they contribute a huge public health benefit. C-19 vaccination of children prevents this public health benefit.
Priming the child’s immune system with C-19 vaccines is likely to further enhance immune escape and increase the infectiousness and virulence of future variants.
Increasingly, it is unvaccinated children who will be best able to handle future infection by new SC-2 variants, compared to vaccinated children and vaccinated adults—because the unvaccinated have unhampered capacity to naturally activate innate Ab-mediated sterilizing immunity, whereas the vaccinated have compromised innate immunity and are prone to breakthrough infections (due to declining vaccinal Ab titers) and potentially predisposed to Ab-dependent enhancement of disease (due to suboptimal neutralizing capacity of vaccinal Abs).
Compared to unvaccinated individuals, vaccinated individuals are more likely to become infected with SC-2 in case the virus becomes largely resistant to the potentially neutralizing vaccinal Abs—because, among other things, non-neutralizing vaccinal anti-S Abs actually facilitate entry of SC-2 into human epithelial cells of the upper respiratory tract.
The vaccine’s interference with the function and training of a child’s innate immune system makes the vaccinated child more susceptible to not only C-19 disease, but also other viral (respiratory) diseases.
In addition, the vaccines may provoke immune inflammatory and auto-reactive effects on individual vaccinees—causing vaccine-related side effects such as myocarditis, for example, and other potential autoimmune diseases.
Bottom Line: There is compelling scientific evidence that the risks associated with C-19 vaccination far outweigh any benefits—at an individual level, at an evolutionary biology level, and at a herd immunity level.

Innate immunity: The child’s guardian angel

Innate immunity is a natural general protection that a person is born with. The innate immune system with which children are born is the reason that healthy children do not become severely ill with SC-2 infection. When they are exposed to the SC-2 virus, pre-existing immune effector cells of their innate immune system produce high concentrations of functional innate natural poly-specific antibodies (Abs) that are capable of recognizing all SC-2 variants and even all CoVs. These innate natural poly-specific antibodies are thought to recognize all SC-2 variants (and other CoVs) and are directed at true self-antigens (e.g., self-glycans) as well as self-mimicking antigen patterns on the virus. Self-mimicking glycan patterns are, for example, exposed on the surface of glycosylated enveloped viruses. Children who are born with rare genetic deficiencies of innate immune effector genes or whose innate immune defense is weakened due to underlying diseases may not benefit from a sufficiently strong protective immune response. However, these cases are the very rare exception and are not considered for the purpose of the following opinion piece.

There is also compelling evidence that innate immunity can be trained by epigenetic changes. The latter can change the immune response in such a way that innate immune cells respond more strongly towards a second exposure to the virus than to the initial exposure. Repeated challenges to SC-2 during the C-19 pandemic would already explain why ‘trained’ innate immune cells in older age groups (in contrast to naïve innate immune cells in children) may even lead to negative vaccine efficacy in these age groups (see attachment at the bottom; data Public Health Scotland and UK Health Security Agency; UKHSA).

The quality of one’s innate immune system is directly related to one’s overall health. If a person is healthy, has no underlying disease, has good nutrition, lives an active lifestyle, is in good physical and mental health, then that person will have good innate immunity.

There is a further layer of protection, if innate immunity is breached, and that is acquired (adaptive) immunity. In the case of an acute, self-limiting viral infection, if the innate immune system is able to reduce the bulk of the viral load but cannot eliminate all of the virus, such that some virus pushes through and causes disease – then nature has a backup, which is our acquired (adaptive) immune system. Acquired (adaptive) virus-specific Abs produced by immature B cells catch the particles of the virus that have breached our first line of innate immune defense and facilitate abrogation of infection by cytotoxic T cells, thereby enabling recovery from natural disease. Furthermore, the acquired (adaptive) immune system remembers this specific event and —by maturing virus-specific memory B cells (to produce neutralizing Abs of high affinity and specificity in the future) — is able to provide durable protection against future exposure to both the original virus and a broad spectrum of viral variants.

In the case of CoV, durable protection against infection is provided by both, the epigenetically trained poly-specific innate Abs and the S(pike)-specific Abs produced by adaptive immune system’s memory B cells. Since the innate immune response clears the bulk of viral load before the elicited S-specific Abs peak, the latter do not exert immune pressure on viral infectiousness. Based on all of the above, it follows that – even during a pandemic – natural immunity can trigger and sustain sterilizing immunity without driving immune escape. This already explains why a ‘natural’ pandemic of an acute, self-limiting viral infection will spontaneously generate herd immunity and, therefore, transition into an endemic phase. In contrast, neutralizing S-specific Abs induced by C-19 vaccines may not have sufficient neutralizing capacity to prevent infection when vaccination is performed during a pandemic. This inevitably leads to selective (i.e., S-directed) immune pressure on the circulating virus.

The innate immune system is equipped with extremely potent humoral and cellular effectors (i.e., innate Abs and natural killer cells, respectively) that are capable of preventing productive viral infection. Provided their presence in sufficiently high concentration and / or their training by previous exposure, innate Abs provide immediate, early and broad protection against several viral pathogens, including CoVs and Influenza viruses, making them a crucial non-redundant component of the humoral immune system.

Innate Abs are produced mainly, if not exclusively, by a subset of long-lived, self-replenishing B cells termed B-1 cells. It has been suggested that the unique developmental pattern of these B-1 cells, which rests on positive selection by self-antigens, ensures production of innate Abs expressing evolutionarily important specificities that are required for recognition of common pathogen-related rather than antigen-specific signals. Different repertoires of such antibody specificities collectively operate to maximize the flexibility of the host’s first line of immune defense in response to free-circulating self-antigens and different sets of invading pathogens that share similar self-like motifs. This already explains why innate Abs for SC-2 protect against all coronaviruses, including all their variants, but also influenza virus and most likely other glycosylated viruses causing acute disease (e.g., respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus). However, B-1 cells have evolved a unique response pattern that minimizes the risk of autoimmunity.

There is no better example of how human immune intervention defies natural immunity than C-19 vaccination in children

Children’s innate immune systems are, by their nature, robust and strong and that is why the vast majority of children who are exposed to SC-2 contract asymptomatic infection and the overwhelming majority of them are protected from severe C-19 disease, regardless of the characteristics of the SC-2 lineage they are exposed to. It is because of this innate immune system, that vaccination does not benefit children; in fact, vaccination may be detrimental in that acquired vaccine-induced Abs that are no longer capable of neutralizing highly infectious SC-2 variants may still bind to the virus and thereby outcompete naïve innate natural Abs of much lower affinity. In this way, adaptive vaccine-induced immunity, unfortunately, enables children to exert immune pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., on S protein), especially when vaccinal Abs are naturally recalled over and over again due to the dominant circulation of more infectious viral variants. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that subneutralizing concentrations of vaccinal Abs complexed with SC-2 virions can cause 1st grade Ab-dependent enhancement of disease (ADED). 1st grade ADED may be due to predominant production of afucosylated Abs. It is not known whether synthesis of afucosylated Abs could be promoted as a result of suboptimal affinity of neutralizing anti-S Abs since afucosylated Abs are known to enhance the affinity of IgG for the IgG-Fc-receptor III family (FcγRIII), found on natural killer cells (and on subsets of other cells) in the immune system.

In the case of Omicron, preponderance of non-neutralizing over neutralizing Abs renders vaccinees more susceptible to infection as compared to non-vaccinated individuals. The more their vaccinal Abs are boosted (by additional booster shots or by the circulating virus), the more vaccinees will become susceptible to infection .

Vaccination interferes with development of herd immunity: Both naturally occurring Ab-mediated immune defenses (i.e., NK cell activation by innate Abs and cytotoxic T cell activation by acquired Abs) are capable of preventing or abrogating productive SC-2 infection and reducing transmission during a pandemic/ epidemic, thereby allowing the healthy & unvaccinated part of the population to contribute to herd immunity (naturally), which is in the public health benefit as the pandemic can only be terminated when herd immunity is achieved. This is in sharp contrast to the effect of vaccine-induced anti-S Abs, which exert selective immune pressure on viral infectiousness when present at high prevalence (mass vaccination!). In the case of Omicron, anti-S Abs are directed at both the receptor-binding domain and the N-terminal domain of the S protein (S-RBD and S-NTD, respectively); because these Abs are present at high prevalence (due to the high level of Omicron’s infectiousness in a highly vaccinated population), these Abs will exert additional immune pressure on viral infectiousness (as anti-S-RBD [Omicron] Abs also target the broadly neutralizing antigenic site within the RBD) as well as on viral virulence (as exposure to Omicron results in boosting of Abs directed against the conserved enhancing antigenic site comprised within NTD).

Because of the important contribution of the innate immune effector cells to protecting children from productive viral infection and hence, from disease, SC-2 is an infection in children in the same way that influenza is an infection in children but neither is a childhood disease. Children certainly catch SC-2 but due to their innate immunity the infection is mostly asymptomatic or only causing mild illness. It is not abnormal nor unusual for children to be ill or to have a day or two being unwell. Cases of severe disease in children are rare and almost no cases of death have been reported in the 1-19 age cohort. For the period 1 February 2021 to 31 December 2021, the number of deaths in England and Wales where C-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate there were two males (< 1y; 15-19 y) and one female (10-14 years) according to Office for National Statistics. These findings are confirmed by the vaccine surveillance report published by UKHSA in March 2022 (see attachment). Of course, children with underlying diseases or older individuals with a weakened innate immune system may contract more severe symptoms and require hospitalization. Likewise, dominant circulation of highly infectious variants may lead to more frequent productive infection and more pronounced disease symptoms in children, as further explained below. It would be wrong, though, to conclude that this can be solved by a mass vaccination program as there can be no doubt that the fulminant expansion in prevalence of such highly infectious variants (e.g., Omicron) directly resulted from the mass vaccination program and that the continuation of this program is only going to further increase selective immune pressure and, therefore, further promote the expansion of even more infectious variants. It is important to note that in the case of Omicron, lack of neutralizing capacity exhibited by vaccine-induced Abs has now led to enhanced viral infectiousness in vaccinees, i.e., vaccinees are more susceptible to infection as compared to the non-vaccinated. This already explains why vaccine effectiveness has now dramatically declined, even in children (see also attachment at the bottom). When the virus breaks through the first line of children’s immune defense (i.e., the innate Ab-mediated immune defense), their immune system engages the next line of natural immune defense, i.e., cytotoxic T cells, the activation of which is likely triggered by the internalization into dendritic cells of virions that are complexed by S-specific Abs (IgMs) produced by immature B cells. In this way, the virus is eliminated in ways that do not generate selective immune pressure on viral infectiousness while enabling training of poly-specific Ab-producing innate immune effector cells. People who recover from C-19 disease (i.e., the overwhelming majority of children who contract symptomatic SC-2 infection) will ultimately develop full-fledged IgGs that rapidly neutralize the virus (including a broad spectrum of variants) upon re-exposure, whereas the trained innate immune system will take care of the remaining viral load by virtue of poly-specific innate Abs that have acquired a higher level of affinity for more infectious circulating variants.

The statements from governments and vaccination stakeholders that vaccination of children will provide them with improved protection from contracting severe disease defies nature and how our natural immune defense successfully deals with natural infection by enveloped glycosylated viruses known to predominantly cause acute self-limiting infection or disease. This includes training of innate Ab-secreting immune effector cells, which enables more effective recognition of SC-2 and all its variants and thereby improves protection against disease. Vaccine-induced protection, however, only protects against severe disease. In addition, this type of protection will likely be of short duration as it comes with substantial immune pressure on viral virulence.

Once Omicron will be replaced by a new family of variants that can overcome this immune pressure, the vaccines will no longer protect against severe disease. It is the polyreactive Abs in the innate immune system that protect healthy children and youngsters from (severe) disease . This mechanism of protection is fundamentally different from the one protecting vaccinated from severe disease. All non-live vaccines against acute infectious diseases are Ab-based. Ab-based viral vaccines protect against disease but never protect against severe disease only. Furthermore, viral vaccines that enhance the susceptibility of vaccinees to infection while protecting them from (severe) disease have not been described. It is, therefore, highly likely that the in vivo protection against severe disease – as claimed by the current C-19 vaccines – is not due to S-specific neutralizing Abs but to S-specific non-neutralizing Abs that are capable of both, enhancing viral infectiousness and hampering viral virulence. This particularly applies to infections caused by Omicron, which is known to be largely resistant to potentially neutralizing vaccinal Abs. When present in sufficient concentration, high affinity, S-specific Abs readily outcompete low affinity, multi-specific Abs for binding to the same antigen. Given the high viral infection rate and hence, great risk of re-exposure (and, therefore, natural boosting), it is reasonable to assume that many of those that are vaccinated experience long-lived functional suppression of their protective, polyreactive innate Abs and are thereby left to rely on vaccine-induced Abs immunity for protection against severe C-19 disease while becoming more susceptible to SC-2 infection and possibly also to infections caused by other glycosylated enveloped viruses that are normally recognized by the same innate Abs. This particularly applies to children as their innate immune effector cells are largely naïve for lack of immune training. In addition, as already mentioned above, protection against severe diseases is likely going to be short-lived due to the ongoing natural selection of new immune escape variants.

Children are particularly susceptible to immunological side-effects of the C-19 vaccines

Innate Abs bind with lower affinity to SC-2 than vaccinal Abs. Vaccinal Abs that fail to neutralize the virus but are still able to bind the virus may, therefore, diminish or even suppress binding of relevant (i.e., CoV-reactive) innate Abs to SC-2. As the vaccinal Abs are antigen-specific, they have a higher affinity for the virus and can outcompete polyreactive innate Abs, even if they do not neutralize it (like with Omicron, as discussed above). When vaccinal Abs are boosted, for example because of repeated exposure to ‘more infectious’ circulating variants, they can suppress innate self-protective Abs for a prolonged period of time. Prolonged suppression of relevant innate Abs by vaccinal Abs could lead to tolerance towards other respiratory viral pathogens and hence, cause enhanced susceptibility to other acute viral respiratory infections.

Innate self-protective Abs play an important role in discarding antigens derived from degraded or degenerated autologous host cells. Hence, prolonged suppression of relevant innate Abs by non-neutralizing vaccinal Abs may lead to lack of elimination of such altered self-antigens and, therefore, cause the host immune system to start attacking the body’s own cells / tissues . This implies that vaccination of children in the presence of variants that are largely resistant to neutralizing Abs could be at risk of causing autoimmune diseases.

It is not only the fact there is no beneficial effect to receive the vaccine and that a child may become more susceptible to other viral diseases or even autoimmune diseases but there is also a serious risk that certain vaccines, in particular genetic C-19 vaccines (e.g., mRNA vaccines), could already harm the child’s health shortly after their administration by causing immune-inflammatory side-effects (e.g., myocarditis). Side-effects that occur shortly after vaccine administration are of particular concern with genetic C-19 vaccines and merely add to the risks that should be taken into account in the risk/ benefit analysis of genetically based C-19 vaccines.

Highly infectious variants are likely to re-infect previously asymptomatically infected individuals shortly after their first exposure. Since previous asymptomatic infection raises short-lived concentrations of S-specific, non-neutralizing Abs, these individuals may become more susceptible to SC-2 infection. This particularly applies to young children as their innate Abs are largely naïve (i.e., produced by immature B cells) and can, therefore, readily be suppressed by S-specific Abs in young children. It is, therefore, not surprising that a pandemic of more infectious variants comes with an enhanced infection rate in young children. Because mass vaccination has resulted in the expansion in prevalence of more infectious variants, the above-mentioned observation is to be considered an (indirect) immunological side-effect of the mass vaccination program. Public Health authorities have argued that children are an important source of viral transmission. They don’t seem to understand that mass vaccination is the culprit of enhanced viral transmission, not the solution. Furthermore, it is currently unknown whether premature susceptibility to viral infections that innate Abs normally protect against could pose a new threat to the health and well-being of young children. It should, therefore, be investigated whether the enhanced incidence of hepatitis in young children (e.g., ages 2-5 years)., for example, could possibly result from such enhanced susceptibility. Data from UKHSA have shown, though, that children can rapidly mitigate their enhanced susceptibility to infection by virtue of training their innate immune system. This already explains why vaccine effectiveness has now become negative in these younger age groups as well (as already mentioned above). Previous asymptomatic/ mild infection does not prevent innate immune training as this type of infection does not prime the host immune system. This provides additional evidence that there is no health benefit in vaccinating young children.

As mRNA vaccines lead to uncontrolled in vivo synthesis of a protein (i.e., spike) that is decorated with self-glycans, vaccine-related immune inflammatory side-effects could occur many months after vaccination (expression of S protein has been reported to persist for up to several months) and may manifest in several different organs (expression of S protein has been demonstrated in several different organs). It cannot be ruled out that – in the presence of S-specific Abs – enhanced expression of S protein on the surface of transfected host tissue cells triggers fusion of those cells with healthy, non-transfected host cells and thereby leads to formation of syncytia and histopathological changes in general. Cell surface-expressed S protein has been shown to trigger trans fusion between infected and non-infected host tissue cells.

As soon as you start vaccinating with non-live vaccines, then acquired immunity is being engaged while natural, Ab-mediated immunity is bypassed. This is of course the intention of being vaccinated: so that a more specific antibody response can more effectively deal with the infection. However, if the virus a person has been vaccinated against significantly changes, then the specific adaptive Abs generated for that virus by the vaccine may no longer recognize it as well as before and it will fail to neutralize it. On the other hand, the broader innate immune response that may have been able to deal with the changed virus is crowded out by the adaptive vaccine-induced immune response, leaving one vulnerable to significant infection by viral variants or 1st ADED, the latter as a potential result of poor binding of neutralizing Abs to heterologous antigenic sites. From an immunological viewpoint, it is reasonable to assume that this is particularly relevant in individuals who are vaccinated shortly before their primary exposure to a viral variant (i.e., the S protein of which differs from the one provided by the vaccine) or whose innate immune effector cells are poorly trained, as is regularly the case in young children. But even if there is a reasonable fit between the circulating variant and the elicited S-specific Abs, basic virology teaches that – unless live attenuated vaccines are used – mass vaccination in the middle of a pandemic of a highly mutable virus such as SC-2, for example, is a recipe for immune escape and that viral variants that escape potentially neutralizing Abs will expand in prevalence in the population.

Vaccination of children in particular drives immune escape and dramatically diminishes the chance for generating herd immunity

When administered during a pandemic, C-19 vaccines cannot diminish viral transmission in the population, and can, therefore, not contribute to herd immunity. Young age groups have a particularly high capacity for contributing to herd immunity as they have strong functional innate Ab capacity and hence, a high potential for mediating broad Ab-mediated sterilizing immunity against CoV (presumably via non-selective innate IgM-mediated activation of NK cells and/ or activation of MHC-unrestricted cytotoxic CD8+ T cells mediated by broadly cross-reactive, acquired IgM). As vaccine-induced, S-specific neutralizing IgGs readily outcompete naïve innate Abs in young children, the selective immune pressure they place on viral infectiousness will only increase. As a result, ‘more infectious’ immune escape variants will enjoy a strong competitive advantage, which will accelerate their dominant propagation in the host population. By vaccinating children, their individual health is not only being potentially harmed but so is public health generally – compromising innate immunity of large parts of the population prevents herd immunity from being established and further enhances the adaptation of more infectious immune escape variants to the highly vaccinated population, thereby accelerating their dominance in the host population. Children’s healthy immune systems are the reservoirs to eliminate the virus and constitute an important source for generating herd immunity and diminishing the likelihood for more infectious variants to dominate.

Omicron serves as an excellent live attenuated vaccine in healthy unvaccinated children. Vaccinating them with any of the current C-19 vaccines will only further increase instead of mitigating the selective immune pressure exerted by highly vaccinated populations and unquestionably take away the last glimmer of hope for generating herd immunity

We can only get rid of the pandemic when we achieve herd immunity. Herd immunity is population immunity and by definition is only achieved when the viral transmission rate is low enough to ensure that the vulnerable people (i.e., those with a weak or immune suppressed health status) have a low probability of becoming infected. That is, the vulnerable are automatically protected by the herd immunity generated by the bulk of the population.

In my opinion, I consider that we had an opportunity to achieve herd immunity at the start of this pandemic which was interrupted by lock downs until mass vaccination started – these measures meant that the opportunity to achieve herd immunity in the early stages was lost. I consider that the opportunity to achieve herd immunity has now shrunk even further with the arrival of the Omicron variant because this variant has acquired a substantial level of resistance to the vaccinal Abs. As a result, non-neutralizing vaccinal Abs are now rendering the virus more infectious in vaccinees, which explains why the vast majority of the population is now more susceptible to infection. That is exactly the opposite of what mass vaccination was supposed to do. In the unvaccinated, however, Omicron is serving as a live attenuated vaccine in that it stimulates natural immunity in ways that do not discriminate between SC-2 variants and don’t exert immune pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., via Ab-mediated abrogation of infection by polyreactive, MHC-unrestricted cytotoxic immune cells). This mechanism typically contributes to building herd immunity and termination of a pandemic of an acute, self-limiting viral disease. This means that only the unvaccinated part of the population is now contributing to herd immunity but, unfortunately, it also means that the latter is no longer within reach because large parts of the population have now become vaccinated.

Another benefit of live attenuated vaccines (i.e., Omicron in the unvaccinated) is that they are able to train innate immune effector cells, which therefore can even improve their recognition of the virus to ameliorate the protective effect of innate Abs. Immune effector cells that secrete innate Abs can be trained just like other innate immune effectors can be trained: by repeated exposure to what is called ‘pathogen-associated molecular patterns’. This is, in fact, nicely shown by the data published by the UK Health Security Agency, previously Public Health England and Public Health Scotland – where they have shown that basically with aging and also with more exposure to the pathogen, the number of cases in the unvaccinated people was dramatically reduced – even to an extent such that vaccine effectiveness has now become negative in the vast majority of age groups (see above).

No single healthy child should be considered eligible for C-19 vaccination, neither from a public nor from an individual health viewpoint

As vaccine-induced anti-S Abs cannot prevent productive viral infections in the host population, they cannot prevent natural selection of more infectious variants. Consequently, the induction of vaccinal Abs in large parts of the population promotes selective transmission of ‘more infectious’ variants and hence, prevents herd immunity from being established. The more people we vaccinate, the more and the faster the population will exert immune pressure on the life cycle of the virus. This is now at high risk of promoting the expansion of new variants that are not only more infectious but also much more virulent.
In contrast, naturally induced immunity sterilizes the virus in that it prevents or abrogates productive infection by circulating variants in ways that don’t provide more infectious variants with a competitive fitness advantage. Naturally induced immunity can, therefore, dramatically diminish viral transmission. This is, by the way, what explains the rapid/ steep decline in the infection, mortality and morbidity rate after a previous surge in cases during a natural pandemic. In the rather exceptional event that a non-vaccinated healthy child (i.e., without underlying diseases or immune deficiencies) would contract moderate disease, the child will not only recover from the disease but also develop acquired immunity, which is long-lived, directed against a diversified spectrum of SC-2 variants and will protect that child, even when the titers of acquired Abs are low (as this will enable trained innate Abs to come into the play). On the exceptional occasion that Omicron would break through the innate immune defense of a healthy child, or for that matter any unvaccinated healthy individual, to cause more serious disease, the patient can be successfully treated – that has always been acknowledged and can successfully be dealt with by early multidrug treatment. In this way, even patients who are at risk of developing serious disease can not only successfully recover but even contribute to herd immunity. The immune status of a person who recovered from C-19 is, therefore, very different from the one induced by a C-19 vaccine. Vaccinal anti-S Abs have a narrower spectrum and are, therefore, not only less protective towards infection by viral variants but also suspicious of causing ADED in case their binding to S on the circulating variant is too weak to neutralize the virus.

Omicron is now increasingly generating durable anti-infective immunity in the unvaccinated part of the population. However, given the infection-enhancing effect of non-neutralizing vaccinal Abs in vaccinees and their strong and frequent recall as a result of natural boosting (via Omicron!), herd immunity is no longer within reach in highly vaccinated populations. The more people we vaccinate, the more and the faster the population will exert immune pressure on the life cycle of the virus. This is now at high risk of promoting the expansion of new variants that are not only more infectious but also much more virulent. Along the same lines of reasoning, we should not vaccinate against the Omicron variant as mass vaccination against Omicron too will boost titers of non-neutralizing, i.e., infection-enhancing Abs and thereby inevitably further increase selective immune pressure on the virus and foster the propagation of far more dangerous variants that fully resist potentially neutralizing Abs. For this reason, it is vital that we leave healthy, unvaccinated people alone, that we leave healthy unvaccinated children alone, and that – instead – we diminish viral transmission by conducting large-scale antiviral chemoprophylaxis campaigns in highly vaccinated countries while protecting the vulnerable and enabling their access to early multidrug treatment.

Summary and overall conclusion

In summary, we can conclude as summarized below:

Because innate immune effector cells in young children are not trained to deal with highly infectious viruses, their innate Abs harbouring a repertoire of specificities targeted at enveloped glycosylated viruses can be readily outcompeted by high-affinity vaccinal Abs directed at S protein, even if these Abs do no longer neutralize the virus. Consequently, vaccination of children turns off their broadly poly-specific natural anti-viral immunity in exchange for S-specific vaccinal Abs that are becoming increasingly useless since their neutralizing capacity becomes more and more eroded because of enhanced escape of the mutated S protein on SC-2 from highly specific, potentially neutralizing Abs (a trend that has been clearly confirmed by molecular epidemiologists) while outcompeting protective innate Abs. Low vaccinal Ab titers are, therefore, at high risk of allowing for breakthrough infections in children who are exposed to viral variants.

In addition, vaccinal Abs with diminished neutralizing capacity towards SC-2 variants are likely to enhance the susceptibility of vaccinated children to 1st grade ADED and thereby making S-specific vaccinal Abs in vaccinees, and particularly in children, more dangerous.

Enhanced suppression of innate Abs by a sustained (pandemic!) high prevalence of elevated anti-S Abs in vaccinated children would also turn them into an excellent breeding ground for more infectious immune escape variants while likely rendering them more susceptible to other viral infections and auto-immune diseases.

On the basis of the above, there can be no doubt that the conclusion of the risk/ benefit analysis strongly and unambiguously argues against vaccinating children against SC-2 for the risk of administering C-19 vaccines to healthy children outweighs the benefit. Therefore, there is no benefit in synthetically protecting children with vaccines when their natural immunity produces a long-lasting immune response that is much safer and more efficient, both from an individual and public health viewpoint. Defying the child’s natural immune defense against SC-2, and several other acute self-limiting viral infections (e.g., Influenza), is an unforgivable sin!

Attachment:

UK Health Security Agency

COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report

Released March 31 2022

Data is March 1 – March 27

Summary of cases, hospitalizations and deaths:

One can view the back releases of this weekly report and see the trend toward diminished vaccine effectiveness emerge and grow steadily stronger since that time.

Cases

For ages 18 and over, vaccination increased the rate of infection regardless of the number of doses, sometimes over 400%
For ages under 18, 1 or 2 doses slightly increased the rate of infection
For ages under 18, 3 or more doses (200,000 people out of over 64 million in the country) reduced rate of infection by only 30%

Hospitalizations

For ages over 18, 3 or more doses decreased rate of hospitalizations by at most 40%, sometimes not at all
For ages over 29, 1 or 2 doses increased rate of hospitalization for every age, sometimes by over 200%

Deaths

For ages over 18, 3 or more doses decreased rate of death by at most 58%, but some age groups were as low as 16%
For ages over 29, 1 or 2 doses increased rate of death for nearly every age group, often by over 200%

Overall, these data suggest that taking these vaccines greatly increases the spread of COVID.

That these vaccines give at most a mediocre reduction of negative outcomes, and only for a short time.

That these vaccines in every case cause a greater magnitude, long term, increase in negative outcome.

The data above are relate to COVID, not to any side-effects of the vaccines.

The LibreOffice spreadsheets are depicted below. They reflect the percent chance of case/hospitalization/death in (fully or partially) vaccinated vs unvaccinated.

March 2022 Chart of UK Case Rate % vs Unvaccinated by Doses (< 18 years):

The raw data can be found in the tables below.

Page 16 details the number of vaccinated individuals for each group with data covering the same dates:

Data is on page 85:

80 and over Population: 2,725,031

3 Doses = 2,489,360

2 Doses = 2,566,995 – 2,489,360 = 77,635

1 Dose = 2,606,360 – 2,566,995 = 39,365

Unvaccinated = 2,725,031 – 2,606,360 = 118,671

70-79 Population: 4,979,828

3 Doses = 4,554,742

2 Doses = 4,705,335 – 4,554,742 = 150,593

1 Dose = 4,742,016 – 4,705,335 = 36,681

Unvaccinated = 4,979,828 – 4742016 = 237,812

60-69 Population: 6,420,555

3 Doses = 5,428,766

2 Doses = 5,818,926 – 5,428,766 = 390,160

1 Dose = 5,894,275 – 5,818,926 = 75,349

Unvaccinated = 6,420,555 – 5,894,275 = 526,280

50-59 Population: 8,374,446

3 Doses = 6,380,544

2 Doses = 7,251,305 – 6,380,544 = 870,761

1 Dose = 7,391,008 – 7,251,305 = 139,703

Unvaccinated = 8,374,446 – 7,391,008 = 983,438

40-49 Population: 8,228,211

3 Doses = 5,048,918

2 Doses = 6,395,752 – 5,048,918 = 1,346,834

1 Dose = 6,612,527 – 6,395,752 = 216,775

Unvaccinated = 8,228,211 – 6,612,527 = 1,615,684

30-39 Population: 9,478,334

3 Doses = 4,328,966

2 Doses = 6,405,034 – 4,328,966 = 2,076,068

1 Dose = 6,791,732 – 6,405,034 = 386,698

Unvaccinated = 9,478,334 – 6,791,732&nbsp

COVID-19 Children Immunology Vaccination

Comments (1)What do you think?

0/3000Publish

therealrestoreinc

Apr. 21, 2022, 7:16 a.m.

Here’s a comment for you…There are unvaccinated adults among us who have not had one COVID-19 shot and are alive and well. Many of us over 60, even 70 years old are loving our natural immune systems’ gift to us and in gratitude have chosen to care for the immune system instead of provoking it artificially with synthetic mRNA. We are those childlike COVID warriors. Re: Quote “Omicron is serving as a live attenuated vaccine in that it stimulates natural immunity in ways that do not discriminate between SC-2 variants and don’t exert immune pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., via Ab-mediated abrogation of infection by polyreactive, MHC-unrestricted cytotoxic immune cells). This mechanism typically contributes to building herd immunity and termination of a pandemic of an acute, self-limiting viral disease. This means that only the unvaccinated part of the population is now contributing to herd immunity…” LEAVE THE FOLLOWING OUT, THIS REST OF THE QUOTE – BECAUSE IT IS NOT UNIVERSALLY TRUE [“…but, unfortunately, it also means that the latter is no longer within reach because large parts of the population have now become vaccinated.”] and EMPHASIZE THIS QUOTE: “…leave healthy, unvaccinated people alone, that we leave healthy unvaccinated children alone, and that – instead – we diminish viral transmission by conducting large-scale antiviral chemoprophylaxis campaigns…”

Company

About Us Terms of Service Privacy Policy Contact Us

Publish on TrialSite

Writing Best Practices Why TrialSite?

TrialSiteNews

159 W Broadway, Suite 200

Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Jun 15 2022

Russian Oil Boycott Fails

Armstring Economics Blog/Energy Re-Posted Jun 15, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The West thought they’d cripple Russia’s economy when they stopped buying Russian oil. Gas prices in the West are on the rise and at unsustainable levels. Meanwhile, Putin is having the last laugh as he is now selling more oil at a higher price point.

In April, Russian oil exports rose by 620,000 b/d to 8.1 million b/d. India (+730,000 b/d) and Turkey (+180,000 b/d) helped to offset the international embargo, while the EU remained the largest importer despite a sharp reduction in shipments. The IEA reported that Russian oil exports rose over 50% YoY during the first four months of the year.

Oil jumped in price last week from $92 per barrel to $122. Gas in the US was $2.10 under Trump. Biden took office and prices rose to $2.37 within the first two months due to a series of decisions that prevented America from remaining energy independent. Before Russia even invaded, gas reached $3.51 per gallon, and now the national average is surpassing $5.00. The boycott has completely backfired on the West and has helped strengthen the Russian economy.

Jun 14 2022

Biden Senior Climate and Energy Policy Advisor Demands Social Media Companies Immediately Block Content Identifying Biden Policy as Source of Energy Inflation

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 13, 2022

There is one big problem for the people inside the Biden administration executing the Green New Deal energy policy, the massive increases in energy cost including gasoline.

You see, everything is an academic estimate until the actual Green New Deal is transferred from theoretical policy into a set of actions that creates a major disruption in the economy. As things in society start to collapse; and as people begin to really feel the inflationary consequences of the Biden energy policy in action; suddenly all of those ‘talking points’ about shutting down the fossil fuel industry take on a new meaning. People didn’t realize the Green New Deal was going to mean $10/doz eggs, $15/gal milk, $20 happy meals at McDonalds, or $150/tank of gasoline…. Now they are paying attention.

For former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the current senior climate and energy policy advisor within the White House, all of these ‘in your face‘ surfacing Green New Deal consequences have become problematic for the Biden administration. Her proposed solution, however, is rather remarkable.

In this interview discussing the skyrocketing inflation and consequences created by the Green New Deal policies, Gina McCarthy urgently begs all of the social media companies to start removing the content from American people who are giving real world examples of the pain and economic hardship they are feeling. McCarthy says that if social media do not start to help Joe Biden hide the pain, the climate change agenda might be at risk. WATCH [11:00 prompted]:

Jun 13 2022

Robbing Russians = You Are Next?

Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Jun 13, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Governments are pulling off a major profound theft. They have been violating international law robbing individual Russians with no connection to Ukraine on the pretense that this will somehow put pressure on Putin to leave Ukraine. But the US has been funding the civil war against Russian-Ukrainians in the Donbas. Western Ukrainian simply hate Russians and this goes back to Bandera in World War II. The West was not upset when the Ukrainians were beating Russians on the street in Odessa, chased them into a building, and then burned them to death alive. That was perfectly fine because they were Russian

The real question here is have our politicians simply used Ukraine as the excuse to just confiscate money regardless of who owns it? There seems to be an apparent almost ownerless view of money emerging especially in Europe where governments are just grabbing money at will abandoning any rule of law. Like Trudeau in Canada confiscating people’s accounts because they supported the truckers. We seem to be entering a complete collapse in the very foundation of law upon which civilization has been sustained.

This confiscation of private Russian accounts and assets on the theory that their country is doing something that offends another is the complete collapse of civilization and it appears to be just getting started as we head into this ominous target of 2032. If we just look at Europe, savers and investors have been abused with negative interest rates since 2014, the assets have been devalued for years, and now with inflation of over 7% in Europe, there is complete drastic destruction of European capital.

The wise have been pouring money out into anything tangible. Everything from collectible cars to art, antiques, coins, and stamps have been rising. A gold Aureus of Brutus with a hole that had previously sold for under $100,000, was just sold for 2,200,000 CHF! A Mercedes Gullwing brought $1,3 million.

There are serious concerns that this is a prelude to the seizure of people’s savings on a wholesale basis for implementing You will Own Nothing & Be Happy. The Russian confiscation in total violation of international law appears to be just a test run for even more serious events in the future. In this wholesale confiscation of private assets, these politicians are using the excuse of Ukraine to implement a completely new normal procedure – the confiscation of billions without asking who the funds belong to and whether there is a connection to the Ukraine war. While some may look the other way because they are Russians and who cares if there is no connection to Ukraine or a rule of law. But turning a blind eye to what is going on is very dangerous for to accomplish this confiscation means they MUST abandon every foundation of the rule of law and without that there can be no civilization left standing.

Those who approve of such actions directed against Russia should be aware that what they can justify today with Russians can and will be done tomorrow with the savings of any citizen. They already confiscate private assets if you travel with more than $10,000 and they PRESUME it is illegal money. They do not even have to prove that there was a crime. They seize it and that is it.

Confiscating someone else’s money demonstrates how desperate politics has become. They MUST retain power and they will justify their actions just as Thraymacus argued in his debate with Socrates. Justice is always the same no matter what form of government because justice simply becomes the self-interest of those in power.

The past speaks to us if we dare to listen. History repeats because the passions of humanity never change throughout the centuries. For thousands of years, governments have been expropriating someone else’s property. No matter what century we look at, the same practice emerges when governments are financially stressed as they are today. It was Edward I who expelled the Jews from England, but the motive was not religion. He borrowed from the Jews to fund his war against France and when he could not pay, he suddenly discovered that his bankers were Jewish – OMG! How could that have been the case? So he expelled them from England but seized all their property denying them the right to flee with their property. It was Edward I who was the king in Brave Heart (being Scottish, it was the most influential film in my life).

Governments are UNWILLING to find solutions to pressing economic problems because they may result in their loss of power and our freedom. Even the plundering of private assets with the help of the low-interest rate policy has deprived people of their rightful income after telling people to save for their retirement and you will be able to live off the interest. Those promises have been destroyed.

Against the background, politicians are incapable of properly managing the state budgets entrusted to them. They no longer know even how to run for office without promising free gifts and taking money from one class to hand to another. Central banks, especially the ECB, have kept interest rates low to provide the over-indebted countries with cheap money, causing savers and investors to sacrifice their future with no end in sight.

Politicians have exploited Russia and begged them to invade Ukraine, refusing to enforce either the Belgrad Agreement or the Minsk Agreement which was to allow the people of the Donbas to vote on their own future while pretending this is a war for democracy v autocracy. They need the Ukrainian war as a diversion as a shell game to distract the people from the economic crisis hiding in the wings.

They have deliberately pushed Russia to suspend servicing their debts to Western lenders, in preparation for their own excuse to suspend their own servicing of debts. As usual with sanctions, not only the person against whom the sanctions are directed in this case Russia is harmed but also this has undermined the entire world economy ensuring its collapse in the years ahead. In this context, it cannot be stressed enough that sanctions historically have never worked and they know that they are generally pointless. They began imposing sanctions against Russia back in 2014 and more sanctions for the Ukrainian false flag of shooting down the Malaysia passenger jet trying to get the West to come in and defend Ukraine.

Even now blaming Putin for blockading Ukrainian ships carrying grain, they omit the fact that the Ukrainians have mined the harbors and are deliberately trying to create starvation to once again compel the West to enter this vindictive war against Russia. The Neocons, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham have been promoting civil war in Ukraine to create a Proxy War they are willing to fight until the last Ukrainian is dead. But nobody will dare look at the fact that this Ukrainian War has been provoked.

The day before Russia invaded, Zelensky announced he would rearm Ukraine with nuclear weapons. We invaded Iraq on the pretense he had such weapons which were never true. Here you have Zelensky standing up publicly announcing he is breaking the Belgrade Agreement and refusing to allow Donbas to hold elections as per the Minsk AGreement, but Putin is the evil person here?

Then we have Zelensky promoting World War III claiming has already begun yet all these world leaders visiting him in Ukraine including Biden’s wife while pretending Kyiv is a war zone. This is all a joke. It is such theatre for the world needs a war to hide the economic collapse they know is coming. I have warned that Zelensky will be the man that brings World War III. That is his mission in this play.

PREPARING TO CONFISCATE PRIVATE ASSETS:

There was a practice run that people have forgotten. Remember the first confiscation of Russian assets when they robbed Russians by confiscating their deposits over Cyprus. Do you recall that back in 2013, the IMF head Christine Lagarde at the time advocated a wholesale seizure of 10% of all accounts throughout the Eurozone because there may be riots and discord if there are bail-ins on a case-by-case basis. This was laid out in the IMF report. The idea is that a wholesale seizure will prevent a bank run for if bail-ins take place on a case-by-case basis then this might start a contagion. Consequently, the latest reports from the IMF discuss this super-seizure of 10% on all savings in the Eurozone they are calling a tax. This is argued to be necessary to solve the debt problem in most sovereign countries. It would be an alternative to higher taxes or spending cuts. The economists who actually wrote the paper claim it appears to be an efficient solution for the debt problem yet it lacks long-term analysis.

Today, the director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Kristalina Georgiva, who is also on the Board of Directors of the World Economic Forum and got the job thanks to Schwab, made a very naive statement claiming that the Russian sanctions are not all that bad. Russia accounts for only 0.4% of the world financial market. She admitted in her 60-minute interview that imposing sanctions on China for helping Russia will lead to more supply chain disruptions which will further inflation. So she justifies illegally confiscating private assets using her bogus statistics yet energy prices are soaring and the EU says the entire food crisis is caused by “Russian alone!” The disinformation is not coming from Putin, but right before our eyes here with Western pretend leaders.

This is all the surface banter that avoids the entire point of our real pending economic crisis – authoritarianism in the West. What has emerged is the justification for grabbing money that belongs to others. Even if we turn the clock back to the 2010 Greek Financial Crisis when politicians suddenly declared bonds worth millions worthless. Private investors in Greek government bonds wanted to claim 12 million euros in damages from the ECB after the debt restructuring. The European Court of Justice ruled against the plaintiffs. Th claim that the expropriation of private assets would facilitate the rehabilitation of the country. That restructuring completely failed. Governments act ONLY in their own self-interest, never in the interest of the nation or the people.

Because we are pushing this end-game of governments being able to keep funding going under this system of perpetual borrowing year after year, adding the fact that the central banks cannot keep buying the debt creating money indefinitely while being blamed for not stopping inflation, the only remaining solution open to the government is to seize the assets of citizens and businesses. This is what Schwab is selling with you will own nothing and be happy. From now on, you can only withdraw small amounts of cash that are absolutely necessary to cover immediate needs. This is always the scheme that repeats in all historical financial crises.

Just Look at Russia

There was absolutely no valid legal basis for seizing the private assets of Russian citizens. It is purely arbitrary but violates every principle of international law. There is also no DUE PROCESS OF LAW afforded any Russian individual. In principle, such a policy against Russian state funds would be legal, but only if the USA and the EU were at war with Russia. There must be a declaration of war to justify even that action. A direct military confrontation is scrupulously avoided because only the US Congress can issue a declaration of war. Therefore, as long as the Biden Administration does NOT send troops to Ukraine, then he does not need Congress’ approval for this Proxy War which has the same intentions of destroying Russia. As far as the confiscation of corporate and private assets is concerned, there is no precedent in history to justify these sanctions. This means they have TOTALLY abandoned all rule of law whatsoever.

Consequently, after already abandoning the rule of law, the intensification of this behavior will only continue when it becomes evident that the political system is collapsing. This is point 8 in Schwabs Great Reset. They know that they are pushing the envelope here and as inflation rises, so will civil unrest. They will then turn on the people just as Venezuela has done which is also why they desperately need to eliminate gun ownership. That is essential to disarm the people who the complete implementation of this Great Reset.

We have embarked upon a new Wild West Economic Policy of just confiscating assets. Blocking funds that could be used to settle claims against Russian debtors is part of this strategy that they KNOW will have zero impact upon forcing Russia to withdraw from Ukraine. They have deliberately put Russia in a position where they know it cannot back down. The real question is do they really think overthrowing Putin will lead to Russia falling to its knees begging for forgiveness?

The sanctions against Russia are presented by the US and the EU as legitimate measures necessary to bring warring Russia and its President Putin to surrender. But they know that will not happen. Clearly, the sanctions do not have the desired effect under any scenario are all they have done is shake the very foundation of the world economy revealing that it is arbitrary and untrustworthy. SWIFT had committed suicide and China’s alternative is pushing the world into a Great Reset, but not the decided objective of a one-world government headed by the United Nations. Africa also just refused to sign the WHO’s dictatorship over world heath.

What is clearly in play is their idea of confiscating private assets. What started the hyperinflation of Germany was NOT the printing of money – that was the result, not the cause. In December 1922, the government did a forced loan. They too confiscated 10% of everyone’s accounts and issued a bond, We are returning to such measures. The US and the EU along with Japan and Switzerland have thrown out all rules of law. We should expect nothing less in this final stage into 2032 where it will become a war between the government against we the people – the great unwashed.

Jun 13 2022

Russia Gains More Ground in Donbas Region as Desperate Zelenskyy Arranges Emergency Meeting with France, Germany, Italy

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 12, 2022 | Sundance

The constant and strategic pressure by Russian military in eastern Ukraine is slowly and methodically taking more ground each day. Russian troops have now encircled and captured the city of Severodonetsk, which will join Lysychansk under full Russian control within days, according to the Washington Post.

Ukraine forces are running out of supplies as the U.S. State Dept. tries to organize the battle formations on behalf of U.S. interests in the country. The Russian advances are slow, methodical and very deliberate. The Ukraine military is losing ground and Zelenskyy is calling for more western help urgently.

LVIV, Ukraine—The leaders of France, Germany and Italy plan to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv this week, officials said, as reports showed Russia making gains in the country’s east and Ukrainian officials urgently sought arms from Western nations to hold Russian forces at bay.

French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi were planning to visit the Ukrainian capital on Thursday, said two European officials, who cautioned that plans could yet change. The trip would be the first to Ukraine since the beginning of the war for the three Western leaders.

News of the planned meeting came as Ukrainian officials said Russia had made fresh gains in its efforts to encircle and capture the city of Severodonetsk, which would bring Moscow significantly closer to its goal of controlling the Donbas area in the country’s east, its foremost target recently in the war.

Serhiy Haidai, the Ukrainian governor of the Luhansk region, which includes Severodonetsk, said on Sunday that Russians had destroyed a second bridge connecting Severodonetsk to Lysychansk, a Ukrainian stronghold just across the Siverskyi Donets river. Russian forces also shelled a chemical plant in the city’s industrial section, where civilians had taken shelter in bunkers, Mr. Haidai said.

The battlefield advances were the latest evidence that Russia is outgunning Ukrainian forces, using its superior artillery power to steadily take territory. Its gains have thrown added focus onto Ukraine’s pleas for more powerful and longer-range artillery and other weaponry from the West, as well as on Ukraine’s lack of capacity to manufacture ammunition for the Soviet-era heavy weapons in its arsenal. (read more)

Jun 11 2022

Biden Tries Blaming Russia for White House Energy Policy and Inflation

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 10, 2022

It’s worth paying attention to where and when Joe Biden is standing when he makes his ridiculous economic claims today about Russia being the cause of the energy policy from the White House.

Do not let it go unnoticed that it’s June, the last month of the second quarter for economic data. Do not let it pass your reference that Joe Biden is speaking from the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) as he spins his nonsense about the inflation, he alone is responsible for. And do not overlook the attendee mentioned in this subtle statement, “And, John, I can’t thank you. You’re — you’re the real deal. Anybody — well, I won’t get into — get you in trouble, but thanks for sticking up for me.”

“John” is the White House Port Envoy John D Porcari. A severely partisan former Obama official who was selected by Joe Biden to lead the fraudulent effort to improve supply chains when the White House was under assault in the fall of 2021. Porcari was the person who designed “operation hide the ships” to give the illusion of port efficiency improvement, and it is almost a certainty that it was Porcari who leveraged his influence with the POLA to hold back the December 2021 import data in order to try and improve the GDP statistics. {GO DEEP}

A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters with negative GDP growth. The first quarter of 2022 was -1.5% as detailed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. That means if April, May and June 2022 are also negative GDP then we are factually in an economic recession. That makes this month, June 2022, critical for Joe Biden. The White House will do anything to avoid that label appearing on their economic policy when the reporting is released at the end of July.

So it’s June, the last month of the second quarter…. and Joe Biden is giving a speech from the Port of Los Angeles….. and the White House will do anything and everything to avoid that “economic recession” label. What does that mean? That means it’s time for John Porcari to work his magic influence again and get the POLA import data held back and delayed so that it is not deducted from the GDP.

In November and December of 2021, it was Transportation Secretary Peter Buttigieg and John Porcari visiting the POLA, Port of Long Beach and the Port of Oakland to deploy operation “hide the ships” {SEE HERE}. Then the December import data from the Port of Los Angeles was withheld an extra month until after the GDP data was assembled.

I think we can all see where this is going.

As we saw from the BEA second review of the first quarter: (1) U.S. inflation was revised upward (prices increased); (2) the estimate of calculated inventories was lowered; (3) the estimate of consumer spending was raised (inflation issue); which leads to (4) a massive drop in the calculation of disposable incomes. [See the Change Table]

This table shows where the revisions are located:

Look at the revision to disposable incomes:

The Joe Biden’s economic policy, specifically his kamikaze energy policy within the Green New Deal agenda, is literally: (a) draining our savings and bank accounts, and (b) increasing our personal debt as we struggle to survive his intentionally created higher prices.

Joe Biden is gaslighting us into serfdom.

Jun 10 2022

Controlled Chaos at the Border

Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Jun 10, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

A border patrol agent from Uvalde, Texas, admitted that the situation at the US-Mexico border is worse than the mainstream media is reporting. The mainstream media may cause one to believe that a few desperate people in search of the American dream are crossing the border throughout the week. In reality, THOUSANDS of undocumented immigrants are entering the country every single day.

Biden’s recent media appearance to Uvalde after the tragic school massacre is the closest he has ever been to the border. His vice president, who is in charge of the border crisis, visited once solely to spite Donald Trump after he said he would visit the border to assess the situation personally.

The Del Rio area near Uvalde has experienced 236,159 illegal crossings during this fiscal year alone. The US Customs and Border Protection records state that illegal crossings continually increase every month of the year. April alone saw a high of 234,088 illegal aliens apprehended, a 12,000 person increase from March.

The Biden Administration has an open border policy at this time. During a NewsMax interview, a border patrol agent admitted that there are barely any agents patrolling the border with “skeleton staffing.” Despite lockdowns for COVID and fears of rampant disease, these illegal immigrants are not tested for illness and are often released by the masses in residential areas.

Worse, the border patrol agent interviewed said that the children in the Uvalde school massacre could have possibly believed it was another migrant running from police. He admitted that schools near the border often go into lockdown during police pursuits. “We just thought this was a normal everyday occurrence,” the agent said of the helpless children who have become desensitized to crime near the border and their school. We do not have the money or resources to protect our own children and border, but somehow send our taxpaying dollars to Ukraine by the billions.

Biden is a disgrace to America. He demanded that the border patrol agents disarm before meeting him, prompting many to turn around and go home. An off-duty border patrol agent, Jacob Albarado, heroically stormed the elementary school and eliminated the threat. He and his men should have been honored by the president instead of insulted to push this agenda to repeal 2A. This is “controlled chaos” as the Biden Administration is deliberately allowing hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants to enter the country.

Jun 10 2022

Disinformation Panels, Corrupt FBI Activity, Govt Control over Speech in Social Media, The J6 Propaganda Effort, it is One Long Continuum

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 9, 2022 | Sundance

Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; instead, what they did was take the preexisting system and retool it, so the weapons only targeted one side of the political continuum. This point is where many people get confused, it is also the most critical element that Washington DC must hide in the aftermath.

The systems of government were retooled during the administration of Barack Obama to fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between government and the American people. Their success in that objective is the discomfort you see, feel and deal with every day.

The people who created the Fourth Branch of Government used every tool in their arsenal to outlast and remove Donald Trump; then they turned to the one cognitively challenged candidate who would not be a threat to the construct, Joe Biden, and installed him through fraud and mail-in ballots. Everything is downstream from this construct.

Prior to 9/11/01 the greatest threat to government was considered to be from outside the U.S, vis-a-vis terrorism. After 9/11/01 the greatest threat was redefined, Americans were now considered the threat, the enemy tracking radar was turned around to look inside America.

In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus 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.

DHS and ODNI were created because Americans were now the threat to government. Stop. Pause. Think. You are taking off your shoes at the airports because YOU are the threat. You pass through body scanners because YOU are the threat. Stop. Pause. Think. How does that define your relationship with government?

Fast forward five years – What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new surveillance and security construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their political (ideological) opposition became the target of the new national security system.

This distinction 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. DHS came along in 2002 and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed.

When Barack Obama and 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. 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.

Grab a cup of your favorite beverage and take a walk with me as we outline how this was put together. You might find many of the questions about our current state of political affairs beginning to make a lot more sense.

It is not my intent to outline the entire history of how we got to this place where the intelligence community now acts as the superseding fourth branch of government. Such an effort would be exhausting and likely take our discussion away from understanding the current dynamic.

History provided enough warnings from Dwight D. Eisenhower (military), to John F. Kennedy (CIA), to Richard Nixon (FBI), to all modern versions of warnings and frustrations from HPSCI Devin Nunes and ODNI Ric Grenell. None of those prior reference points are invalid, and all documented outlines of historic reference are likely true and accurate. However, a generational review is not useful, as the reference impacting us ‘right now‘ gets lost.

Instead, 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 now metastasized into a Fourth Branch of Government. It is this superseding branch that now touches and influences every facet of our life.

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 & 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 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.

The DNI office created a problem for those who operate in the shadows of proprietary information. You’ll 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.

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 intelligence conduct. Dianne Feinstein stepped down, 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 and blocking 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 arms 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 advise 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 DEEP} How 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.

♦ People want examples, reference points for work the Intelligence Branch conducts, specifically how it protects itself.

Here is an example: Julian Assange.

Yes, the history of the U.S. national security apparatus goes back decades; however, the weaponization of that apparatus, the creation of an apex branch of government, the Intelligence Branch, originated –as we currently feel it– under President Barack Obama.

Obama took the foundational tools created by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and used the intelligence system architecture to create a weapon for use in his fundamental transformation. An alliance of ideologues within government (intel community) and the private sector (big tech and finance) was assembled, and the largest government weapon was created. Think about this every time you take your shoes off at an airport.

After the weapon was assembled and tested (Arab Spring), the Legislative Branch was enjoined under the auspices of a common enemy, Donald J. Trump, an outsider who was a risk to every entity in the institutional construct of Washington DC. Trillions were at stake, and years of affluence and influence were at risk as the unholy alliance was put together.

To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to U.S. Intelligence Branch interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the FBI/CIA were in 2016.

It is within the network of foreign and domestic intel operations where Intelligence Branch political tool, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, was working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI counterintelligence operations.

By now, people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor generally identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the FBI/CIA to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}

In a similar fashion, the FBI tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor, Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.

The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.

HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes outlined how very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. The FBI also fabricated information in the FISA.

However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints of the international intelligence apparatus; only this time, due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S., the CIA aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies was important.

Remember, it’s clear in the text messages Strzok had a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA. Additionally, former CIA Director John Brennan has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative; and Peter Strzok wrote the July 31st, 2016, “Electronic Communication” that originated FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane.” Strzok immediately used that EC to travel to London to debrief allied intelligence officials connected to the Australian Ambassador to the U.K, Alexander Downer.

In short, Peter Strzok acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for the Intelligence Branch and CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.

Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015; at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons, the 2015 GOP candidates for President.

It was also Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskaya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S.

Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan died in a helicopter crash.

Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s private sector handler [NOTE: remember, the public-private sector partnership], it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Patrick Byrne the instructions on where to send Butina. {Go Deep}

All of this context outlines the extent to which the FBI/CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that eventually settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit. The international operations of the Intelligence Branch were directed by the FBI/CIA; and the domestic operations were coordinated by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

Recap: ♦Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Halper tasked against Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Azra Turk, pretending to be a Halper asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI). ♦Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr (CIA, Fusion-GPS). ♦Butina tasked against Donald Trump Jr (FBI). All of these activities were coordinated.

Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. However, Deripaska refused to participate.

All of this foreign and domestic engagement was directly controlled by collaborating U.S. intelligence agencies from inside the Intelligence Branch. And all of this coordinated activity was intended to give a specific Russia influence/interference impression.

♦ The key point of all that background context is to see how committed the Intelligence Branch was to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ and DOJ-NSD, put a hell of a lot of work into it.

We also know that John Durham looked at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talked to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

(Link to pdf)

On Tuesday April 15th more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, and it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.

Why the delay?

What was the DOJ waiting for?

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after Congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.
Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.
“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”
Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

Knowing how much effort the Intelligence Branch put into the false Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange, monitor all activity, and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

Within three months of the EDVA grand jury, the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018.

The DOJ sat on the indictment while the Mueller/Weissmann probe was ongoing.

As soon as the Mueller/Weissmann probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).

As a person who has researched this fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.

It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange. The Weissmann/Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes for justification, and that narrative was contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

♦ This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.

The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC and FBI contractor.

The CIA holds a self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim; the FBI holds an interest in maintaining that claim; the U.S. media hold an interest in maintaining that claim. All of the foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.

This “Russian hacking” claim was ultimately important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus, it forms the corner of their justification. With that level of importance, well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Julian Assange down as soon as intelligence officials knew the Weissmann/Mueller report was going to be public.

…. and that’s exactly what they did. They threw a bag over Assange.

♦ 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 implication, the very direct and specific implication; the unavoidable implication and James Comey admission that everyone just brushed aside, was that President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, was totally 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 total 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 specifically includes 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.

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, 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 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.

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.

♦ 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 brazen 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. 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.

After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power. The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what Barack Obama was all about.

The Obama network took pre-assembled intelligence weapons we should never have allowed to be created and turned those weapons into tools for 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. From that perspective the fundamental change was successful.

♦ WHAT NOW? There is a way to stop and deconstruct the Intelligence Branch, but it requires some outside-the-box thinking and reliance on the Constitution as a tool to purposefully change one element within government, the 17th amendment. In the interim, we must remain focused on the three tiers that we need for success.

• Tier One is “tactical civics” at a local level. Engaged and active citizen participation at the community, city, town and hamlet level of society. This is what might be described as grassroots level, school board level; city council level; county commissioner level. Make sure your local officials represent your values. This is your immediate tribe.

• Tier Two is “extreme federalism” at a state level. Engaged and active citizen participation through your State House and State Senate representative. This is state level assembly and action demands upon the State House, State Senate and State Governor. Make sure your state officials are prepared to defend your state interests from federal intervention. Support only candidates who support states rights.

• Tier Three the challenge of “federal offices” on a national level. Federal government needs to be cut down in size. The ODNI and DHS need to be taken down and removed from power. A repeal of the 17th amendment is a nuclear political weapon detonated in the heart of the swamp.

Jun 10 2022

Hawley and Grassley Receive Evidence from Whistleblower Showing DHS Intent to Weaponize Social Media to Control Information

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 9, 2022 | Sundance

Thanks to a DHS whistleblower who has come forward to Senators Josh Hawley and Chuck Grassley, we are now seeing the direct evidence of how the Fourth Branch of Government, specifically the Dept of Homeland Security, were planning to take control over public discussion on Big Tech platforms. [Whistleblower Evidence HERE]

Previously the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced a new Dept of Homeland Security priority to combat disinformation {LINK} on technology platforms including social media.

Many eyebrows were raised as the original CISA announcement appeared to be an open admission that the U.S. government was going to control information by applying labels, that would align with allies in social media, who need a legal justification for censorship and content removal. The whistleblower leak confirms exactly that.

This CISA announcement was quickly followed by various government officials and agencies saying it was critical to combat Russian disinformation, as the events in Ukraine unfolded. In essence, Ukraine was the justification for search engines like Google, DuckDuckGo, and social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube to begin targeting information and content that did not align with the official U.S. government narrative.

Those same methods were deployed by the U.S. government, specifically the CDC and FDA, toward COVID-19 and the vaccination program. All of this background aligns with the previous visibility of a public-private partnership between the bureaucracy of government, the U.S. intelligence agencies and U.S. social media. That partnership now forms the very cornerstone of the DHS/CISA effort to control what information exists in the public space. It is highly important that people understand what is happening.

In July of 2021 the first admission of the official agenda behind the public-private partnership was made public {Reuters Article}.

What we are seeing now is an extension of the government control mechanisms, combined with a severe reaction by all stakeholders to the latest development in the Twitter takeover.

For two years the control mechanisms around information have been cemented by govt and Big Tech. Even the deployment of the linguistics around disinformation, misinformation and malinformation is all part of that collective effort. The collaboration between the government and Big Tech is not a matter for debate, it is all easily referenced by their own admissions. The current issue is how they are deploying the information controls.

We have COVID-19, the vaccination effort and now Ukraine as examples of the collaboration to control information, to control what people are permitted to question and discuss on the internet. Now things are getting much more detailed, and more alarming.

Shortly after Elon Musk made a bid to purchase a single information platform, Twitter, and then expressed his intent to open the speech valves, former Obama administration intelligence officials wrote a letter {SEE HERE} warning about efforts to break up the information control by Big Tech and Social Media.

That letter was shortly followed by a speech delivered by Obama himself where he specifically demanded that government take a larger role in the control of information {LINK}, essentially promoting an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’ to control information in the public sphere.

The internet search engine operators have already agreed to align with the interests of the government. That’s not debatable as in the examples of Google {LINK) and DuckDuckGo {LINK} to name just two. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube have famously also expressed their intent to align with the control of information, based on the instructions and edicts of the same U.S. government agencies. Again, this is not a conspiratorial claim, it is self admitted and we have all witnessed it.

Today, we are seeing the architecture of how they planned to organize the tools.

[Read Emails Here]

Jun 9 2022

WHO Do You Think You Are? Nations Reject Pandemic Treaty

Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Jun 9, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

All the world leaders supporting the Great Reset were eager to relinquish complete power to the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO wanted to seize the ability to force health mandates on the global population. The Pandemic Treaty would have allowed the WHO to bypass national laws and implement their will on the people.

A message from the WHO:

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed gaps in the governance, financing and systems needed to keep the world safe from epidemics and pandemics. There is an emerging global consensus around the need for an international treaty or other legally binding instrument, to provide the framework for a more coherent and coordinated response to future epidemics and pandemics.

Botswana was the first nation to say, “NO.” Then the entire continent of Africa declined to join the treaty, which is no surprise considering that these health organizations use their nations and people for experimental purposes. Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Malaysia, and Brazil also rejected the treaty.

“National sovereignty is not something to be handed over to WHO or other entities and to be renounced just to join a club of seemingly advanced nations,” Brazil’s Bolsonaro said after threatening to exit the WHO. Former President Trump attempted to exit the WHO, but Joe Biden dragged America back into the organization. Trudeau does not care about the Canadian people and has continued to fight Parliament tooth and nail to hand his nation to Schwab on a silver platter.

We are not completely safe. “They have not given up though – far from it,” warned Queensland, Australia, Member of Parliament Stephen Andrew. “Instead, they did what they always do and ‘pivoted.’ At their request, a new working group was convened to make ‘technical recommendations on the proposed amendments which will [be] re-submitted along with the Pandemic Treaty, at the 77th Health Assembly meeting in 2024.”

One can hope that the voters will continue to elect leaders that fight for medical autonomy, as handing over full power to a corrupt organization will truly place us in a dystopian world void of freedom.

Centinel2012

De Oppresso Liber

Category U. S. Build Back Better

The immunological rationale against C-19 vaccination of children, Part I

Published originally on TrialSite News on April 20, 2022

Table of content

Key message:

Innate immunity: The child’s guardian angel

There is no better example of how human immune intervention defies natural immunity than C-19 vaccination in children

Children are particularly susceptible to immunological side-effects of the C-19 vaccines

Vaccination of children in particular drives immune escape and dramatically diminishes the chance for generating herd immunity

No single healthy child should be considered eligible for C-19 vaccination, neither from a public nor from an individual health viewpoint

Summary and overall conclusion

Controlled Chaos at the Border

Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Jun 10, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Published originally on TrialSite News on April 20, 2022

Table of content

Key message:

Innate immunity: The child’s guardian angel

There is no better example of how human immune intervention defies natural immunity than C-19 vaccination in children

Children are particularly susceptible to immunological side-effects of the C-19 vaccines

Vaccination of children in particular drives immune escape and dramatically diminishes the chance for generating herd immunity

No single healthy child should be considered eligible for C-19 vaccination, neither from a public nor from an individual health viewpoint

Summary and overall conclusion

Share this:

Armstring Economics Blog/Energy Re-Posted Jun 15, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Share this:

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 13, 2022

Share this:

Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Jun 13, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

PREPARING TO CONFISCATE PRIVATE ASSETS:

Just Look at Russia

Share this:

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 12, 2022 | Sundance

Share this:

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 10, 2022

This table shows where the revisions are located:

Share this:

Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Jun 10, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Share this:

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 9, 2022 | Sundance

We begin….

Things to note:

Here is an example: Julian Assange.

~ 2021 Gang of Eight ~

Share this:

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 9, 2022 | Sundance

[Read Emails Here]

Share this:

Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Jun 9, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Share this: