Category U. S. Ministry of Truth and democracy

Nov 21 2022

Why All Elections Are Rigged


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Nov 20, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Do you think the midterm elections were rigged?

SK

ANSWER: Under normal conditions, one would have to answer that question as – OF COURSE.

In the past five midterm elections, the Republicans gained control of the Senate in 2014, the House in 2010, and the Senate in 2002. The Democrats gained both the House and Senate back in 2006. So it has been 20 years since a midterm election didn’t result in a change of control in at least one chamber of Congress when the Republicans kept the House and Senate in 1998.

Biden has used the strategic oil reserve which was to protect the nation against another embargo as during the 1970s all to manipulate the midterm election. He also sold oil to China. And then Biden promised that he would make abortion a constitutional amendment, which he cannot do – it would take states to vote on that and he knew he was just a bold face liar.

The reason he deplete the strategic oil reserve is because if the economy turns into a recession and/or high inflation, Congress will always flip and in a presidential election, the president is booted out like Hoover in 1932 or Jimmy Carter in 1980.

The youth voted for Democrats and they will soon realize that they were played as the typical fool just as the Democrats, the party of slavery during the Civil War, used the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and many have said it was to get the black vote.

MSNBC reporter Adam Serwer writes:

In Senate cloakrooms and staff meetings, Johnson was practically a connoisseur of the word. According to Johnson biographer Robert Caro, Johnson would calibrate his pronunciations by region, using “nigra” with some southern legislators and “negra” with others. Discussing civil rights legislation with men like Mississippi Democrat James Eastland, who committed most of his life to defending white supremacy, he’d simply call it “the nigger bill.”

Anyone who thinks that those on Capitol Hill really care about you or your future is a brainwashed fool. This is a game of party politics and that is civil war on Capitol Hill.

EVERY election is always rigged! The only question is did it actually effect the outcome. Nobody will dare to actually launch a real investigation into that. When a Grand Jury in 1908 investigated elections in Chicago, they concluded that there was probably NEVER a fair election. It does not matter which side, for they all are in the game.

Nov 21 2022

The Core Battle Within the Republican Party


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 21, 2022 | sundance

An inflection point is coming.  In preparation for what we are about to witness, it is critical to understand that both the DNC and RNC are private corporations with no affiliation to government.

It is a difficult shift in thinking to appropriately understand, but the party system in U.S. politics revolves around two clubs that feed from the same corporate trough and position for influence and affluence within a political dynamic they control.

The priority for both clubs, Republican and Democrat, is NOT primarily ideological.  In the modern era, the corporate priority first begins with a battle over who controls each corporation.

As long as there is no challenge, the clubs operate without issue.  However, when there is a battle for control of the corporation, a battle that will ultimately determine the financial outcome, the internal battle becomes the priority.

2024 is going to be the election season when we see this corporate battle explode inside in the Republican group.  Decades of entrenched power are at stake, and there has been four years of counter positioning and backroom discussion leading up to this moment.

As a consequence, and I know this might sound odd to many people – but winning and/or losing elections becomes a secondary issue.  The RNC is not focused on winning elections. The RNC corporation is focused on retaining control.

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

When you hear the influence group saying the two priorities for control of the Republican Club involve, (1) eliminating populism in the ranks; and (2) realigning with multinational corporate objectives (vis a vis Wall Street), what they are publicly expressing is their RNC corporate need to get rid of the America First economic agenda; to get rid of the MAGA influence.

How has this historically surfaced?

Well, at a national level there is a unique policy priority that almost every politician, on both sides, will avoid discussing.  At a national level a single policy priority determines all other national policy outlooks.  That policy is the national economic policy.

The national economic policy of a presidential candidate determines all other national policies that flow from the presidential candidate.  The national economic policy impacts the obvious policies like energy and trade, and also determines the lesser obvious policies like regulation and even foreign policy.

It is specifically because a candidate’s national economic outlook impacts all other issues, that most national politicians never talk about it.

It would be impossible to support Main Street USA, a popular talking point, and still support the Paris Climate Treaty, the Transpacific Trade Partnership (TPP) or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

To avoid the contradictions, most Democrat and Republican politicians avoid discussing their national economic policy. It is an unspoken rule within the billionaire club and donor game, an economic code of omerta amid most political candidates.

President Trump broke the rule and even went so far as to campaign on an America First economic policy agenda.  That core outlook forms the Make America Great Again foundation.  MAGA is based on a national economic policy outlook that determines every other national policy as carried by President Trump.

While most Americans may not be able to articulate how the national economic policy impacts them, almost every American feels the consequences through gasoline prices, energy prices, employment, wage rates and the expenses within their everyday lives.  To try and hide this reality, often media and economic analysts will say the U.S. President has no control over gasoline prices; however, this is unequivocally false.

Yes, it is true that oil prices are determined by the global market for the product, the supply and the demand.  However, the energy policy of the president determines the domestic investment in natural resource development and extraction by oil companies.  The energy policy determines domestic supply.  The regulatory policy determines the expansion, or lack therein, of oil and gasoline refinery capacity.  So yes, it is ultimately the U.S President who determines gasoline prices indirectly through energy and regulatory policy.

If this were not the case, then gasoline would cost nearly the same in almost every nation. It doesn’t.  Right now, gasoline in Mexico is almost $1 less than gasoline in the United States, specifically because Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador is not trying to reduce oil resource investment, development and/or gasoline refinery capacity.

President Trump was the first presidential candidate who campaigned on a domestic national economic policy.  He even went one step further and stated the T-word, tariffs.  Yes, the commerce department holds tools to support a national economic policy.

The tariff tool is another aspect to national economics that most politicians avoid discussing because the toolbox is counter to the interests of Wall Street, multinational corporations and hedge fund managers.

For a reference point you might remember the apoplectic fits from financial and economic punditry to President Trump’s 2017 and 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs.

Economic security is determined by national economic policy.  National security is also an outcome of national economic policy.  Again, President Trump was also the first modern president to put that outlook to work when he said, “economic security is national security,” and then began constructing a foreign policy agenda using the cornerstone of national economic policy.  The result was quite remarkable and led to what eventually became the Trump Doctrine.

It was inherently the US national economic policy that underpinned President Trump challenging NATO to meet their financial obligations.  It was national economic policy that drove trade policy and created the north American USMCA trade agreement.  It was national economic policy that led to countervailing duties on Chinese and European imports.  Which had the remarkable effect of actually lowering prices inside the United States.

We began importing deflation through lower priced goods as the value of the dollar increased and China/EU central banks devalued their currency to avoid the impact of tariffs.  Asia and the EU also subsidized their export manufacturing with incentives in order to lower costs as an offset to the tariffs, while simultaneously Asian and European companies began investing in production facilities inside the U.S. as a long-term approach to retaining access to the U.S. market. To put it succinctly, this was MAGAnomics at work.

U.S. wages increased, U.S. job growth increased, U.S. energy prices dropped with increased energy development and a massive cut in regulations, and that in turn lowered the cost of domestic goods.  Suddenly we were importing goods at lower prices and generating goods internally at lower prices.  More MAGAnomic outcomes, which, not coincidentally, was the exact opposite of all Wall Street claims and predictions.

Making America Great Again, was an outcome of national economic policy.  At its core, MAGA is a national economic dynamic within a political movement that is represented by President Donald J Trump.

It is critical to understand, the MAGA economic policy is essentially a national policy completely, and uniquely, under the control of the office of the President.  The impact to the lives of Americans is a direct outcome from national economic policy.  If a president wants to lead an independently wealthy country, he/she applies a very specific economic outlook to all other policy areas including energy, regulation and foreign policy.

It is also true that opposition to President Donald Trump is uniquely connected to the America-First economic agenda.

Multimillion-dollar lobbyist firms like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, along with dozens of economically established SuperPAC’s funded by Wall Street and multinational corporations, are vehemently opposed to the America-First economic agenda.

All of the national politicians and political candidates taking money from these aforementioned groups necessarily bind themselves to a position that stands against the America-First economic agenda.

In essence, if you take money from the multinationals you cannot deliver on MAGA economic outcomes for banking, trade, finance etc.  And that’s exactly where we run into the problem.

Because MAGA national economic priorities conflict with the multinational corporations, hedge funds and the Wall Street donor class, all of the politicians who accept the influence checks from these self-interested groups cannot run on, or deliver, a MAGA national economic agenda.

At a local, county and state level you have direct impact on the political policy agenda in your community.  Who you elect to the city council, school board, state house and senate as well as governor’s office has an impact on those local and state priorities.  However, national economic policy, national energy and trade policy and national foreign policy are not under your control.

As a result, the same skillset, or policy outlook, that makes a governor a successful state politician doesn’t carry into a federal office, [see the example of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker].  Yes, there are some executive and administration skills that carry over; however, on the bigger issue of steering the national policy agenda, almost every candidate for office comes with the baggage of having accepted donor contributions from a class of people who are paying for economic policy influence.

MAGA cannot be purchased.  It is a political outlook that seeks only to enhance the best interests of the American people, regardless of consequence for the multinationals or foreign beneficiaries of globalist U.S. economic policy.  Unfortunately, as a result, all of the beneficiaries are aligned to make sure the MAGA economic policy outlook is extinguished.  There are literally trillions at stake.  This reality underpins the opposition to Donald Trump.

When you understand why the national economic outlook of the President is so important, you can also understand why every political candidate is told not to discuss it by the handlers and campaign managers who are essentially selling their candidate to a millionaire and billionaire donor class who do not want an America-First economic policy agenda.

There is no easy solution for this problem, and ironically this core economic issue is where you find supporters of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in alignment.

Where the Sanders and Trump camps split is on the solution.  Team Sanders wants the government to play the role of economic referee (regulation), while Team Trump wants the government to change the rules of the economic game (countervailing duties, tariffs etc).

Before Donald Trump entered politics there was no home for people voting on the issue of a national economic agenda. Both Democrat and Republican candidates had essentially the same worldview on national economic policy because they are all getting money from the same multinational corporate trough.  However, President Trump changed that dynamic by presenting an alternative national economic policy called America-First.

For decades middle America was begging the McConnell’s, Ryans, Boehners, Romney’s, McCain’s, Bushes, et al, to make America First economic policies their priority.  All of our shouts for help fell upon deaf political ears plugged by corporate donations and influence.  Our communities were literally collapsing around us (see rust belt), and yet no national politician would do anything of consequence.

By the time Donald Trump arrived decades of frustration exploded in an eruption of massive applause because he was articulating the central economic issue that was being ignored by the professional political class.  The America First agenda is the restoration agenda.  From Trump’s national economic policy, the middle-class erosion stopped. Economic security, specifically U.S. employment stability and wage rates, goes hand in glove with border security and immigration controls.

MAGAnomics is the core of the great MAGA republican coalition, a working-class coalition that cuts through all other distinctions and divisions.  It is not republican because of political affiliation, it is “MAGA republican” only because the republican party was the political vehicle selected by Donald Trump to install the policy.

This reality creates a problem for the DC professional political class and the corporate media. Because MAGAnomics is the fundamentally binding principle there is no way to fracture the Trump supporter coalition.

I am a “MAGA Republican” by default of my wanting a national economic agenda that looks out for the economic interests of American’s first.

Donald Trump is the irreplaceable Great MAGA King because Donald Trump is the only one who holds that same outlook.  Unfortunately, the Republican corporation does not carry that priority. Thus, the Big Ugly battle for control of the Republican Party is being previewed right now, and will grow in scale and consequence very soon.

Let me emphasize the key point.  The Republican Party is not positioning to win the 2024 election.

The people in control of Republican Club do not care who is in the White House, that is a secondary objective.  What they care about right now is controlling the Republican corporation and stopping the hostile takeover.

Every single Republican presidential candidate for 2024, sans Trump, will be inserted into the race to help the Republican corporation in this battle.  When you see them enter, instead of asking, ‘how can they win‘, ask yourself what is their mission on behalf of the Club priority?

Nov 21 2022

Sunday Talks, Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy States His Intention to Remove Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar from House Congressional Committees


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 20, 2022 | sundance

During an interview with Maria Bartiromo {Direct Rumble Link Here} incoming Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy discusses his outline to become Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Additionally, Leader McCarthy states his intention to disallow Democrats Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell to maintain status on the House intelligence committee, and also remove Democrat Ilhan Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. {Segment Rumble Link}  WATCH:

{Full Interview Here}

Full Interview:

.

Nov 21 2022

If They Say You’re Too Small to Make a Difference, Tell Them to Sleep in a Room with a Mosquito


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 20, 2022 | sundance

Wall Street -vs- Main Street

Corporate Donors -vs- MAGA

.

Nov 21 2022

Sunday Talks, Paul Ryan Dismisses 75 million Member MAGA Movement, Claims Corporations Will Win Power Struggle Within GOP Battle


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 20, 2022 | sundance

This interview is excellent news as Paul Ryan delivers a full-throated dismissal of Donald Trump and puts himself as the arbiter of “acceptable republicans” moving forward.

This Big Club operation in public is exactly what we need to see happen in order to wage a war against uniformed enemies within the republican party.  Keep in mind, as Paul Ryan talks about winning elections he recently campaigned for Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger in their failed 2020 midterm reelection campaigns.

Nothing about this interview where Paul Ryan positions himself against the blue-collar working-class MAGA movement is bad.  Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and for Paul Ryan to openly proclaim his anti-Donald Trump allegiances, which will soon evolve into open promotion for Ron DeSantis, will only help the awakening as we highlight the Republican Club strategy for 2024.  WATCH:

As I have said for years, there was no doubt in my mind that Paul Ryan was positioning himself to lead the “establishment” republican wing of the UniParty.  He has now openly and publicly embraced that role.  Pretenses are dropping, and that is a glorious thing. However, in reality, Paul Ryan as a candidate for Vice-President in 2012 received less votes in his own state of Wisconsin than candidate Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020.

The ‘America First’ national agenda, both economically and in larger global terms, was not represented in either wing of the UniParty system until Donald Trump came into politics.  The economics of the thing, the financial graft that oils the wheels of politics, is the source of all opposition.

On the part where Ryan outlines his view of the current financial situation, I can only laugh in his face.

This is the guy who was Speaker of the House of Representatives when he dispatched regular budgetary order in order to facilitate President Obama’s need for omnibus spending and continuing resolution bills.  Obviously, Ryan needs to pretend not to know that, and counting on, as Jonathan Gruber would say, “the stupidity of the American electorate.”

This battle into 2024 is going to be epic and fun.

Ryan named Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott as his three favorites. {source} DeSantis fighting Disney was “really good for him, from a political perspective,” Ryan said.

As the House Speaker, Paul Ryan undercut President Trump at every turn in the first two years of his administration.  Ryan’s duplicity included his unwillingness to support Devin Nunes and other House chairman in their subpoena efforts against the bad actors in the intelligence community.  Paul Ryan was, in deliberate terms, knowingly and with specific intent protecting the corrupt DC interests.

Yes, it is something he would rather people not remember, but it was Speaker Paul Ryan who blocked republicans in the House from issuing subpoenas in 2017 and 2018 for the election surveillance and FBI lies against President Trump.  It is also worth remembering that Paul Ryan’s leadership PAC funded democrat Conner Lamb in the 2018 mid-term election after Ryan announced his intended departure.

Paul Ryan has always been the type of DeceptiCon who could get the CPAC audience to stand and cheer for him only minutes after passing a massive omnibus spending package to support President Obama.  Thus, the UniParty maneuvers are always present; including when Ryan said: “I am not going to defend Trump – not now, and not in the future.”

Additionally, former House Speaker Paul Ryan previously held a fundraising event for Liz Cheney (March 2021), and then Paul Ryan announced a failed attempt to fundraise for Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger.. ..

A week after saying any Democrat who made the 2020 presidential race about “Trump’s personality” will beat him, Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch hired Paul Ryan to serve as a board member for the news organization.  This announcement followed on the heels of Fox News hiring the former head of the DNC, Donna “Debate-Gate” Brazile, as a contributor.  Yes, it is clear to see the direction and intent of Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch.

[…] Lachlan Murdoch, the heir apparent and eldest son, who co-chairs News Corp and runs the parent company of Fox News, has reportedly told DeSantis that the group would back him if he ran in the next election. “Lachlan has been keen on Ron for some time,” said the i’s source. “He’s viewed within the organization as a sanitized version of Donald.” (read more)

It must also be remembered that in 2013 Fox News worked behind the scenes to facilitate the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform platform.  Additionally, a year later, Murdoch himself advocated for Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio as the preferred candidates in 2016, using Megyn Kelly to achieve their objective.

Yes, it is all one unfortunate, political and ideological continuum.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “RINO Paul Ryan, who became a lame duck Speaker of the House, lost all vote-getting capability with the people he represented in Wisconsin, and was the single biggest factor, other than Romney himself, for the monumental Romney/Ryan loss in the Presidential race of 2012 (I got more votes by far, 75M, than any sitting president in history!), and he is now speaking to other Republicans telling them how to win elections. Interestingly, I was in the Great State of Wisconsin when they booed him off the podium—I literally had to come to his rescue.

Ryan should instead be telling them how to stop the cheating of elections and that we would have won if Republican leadership fought the way the Democrats did.

It was the day that Ryan went on the board of Fox (Fox will never be the same!) that Fox totally lost its way and became a much different place, with millions of its greatest supporters fleeing for good. Paul Ryan has been a curse to the Republican Party. He has no clue as to what needs to be done for our Country, was a weak and ineffective leader, and spends all of his time fighting Republicans as opposed to Democrats who are destroying our Country.

As a Republican, having Paul Ryan on your side almost guarantees a loss, for both you, the Party, and America itself!” (link)

Nov 21 2022

Sunday Talks, Prepping the Landscape CBS Interviews Former DAG Rod Rosenstein About Garland Special Counsel Appointment


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 20, 2022 | sundance

DATA Links:  (1) Merrick Garland DOJ Statement on Appointment of Special Counsel ~ (2) pdf of Legal Appointment ~ (3) Statement of John Smith upon Appointment ~ (4) Transcript of AG Merrick Garland Public Announcement.

The pretending is severe as CBS recruits former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to discuss the decision by Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate republicans in congress and President Donald Trump.

You can tell the pretending is severe because neither Rosenstein nor Brennan even touches on the primary aspect to the written instructions by Garland to special counsel John Smith.  The primary function of the special counsel is completely avoided in the interview, [again, read the pdf of the appointment]. Instead, the conversation with Rosenstein focuses on the second, lesser included instruction, the Trump-centric portion.

The corporate media engineers, working on concert with the DC agenda, are pulling Rosenstein into the picture to frame the narrative toward an announcement of an indictment against President Trump. WATCH:

In response to the question of the appointment itself, Rosenstein noted he “probably would not” have made the decision to appoint a special counsel.  However, don’t get too caught up in the granules of the interview itself.  Instead, ask why the media is pulling Rosenstein into the prosecutorial debate?   What benefit is there?  Within those answers you then overlay the fact the primary function of the appointment itself is not part of the conversation.  [Transcript Below]

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin this morning with former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel for the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and to determine if there were links between that country and former President Trump’s campaign. And he joins us in studio. It is good to have you here in an extraordinary week.

FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN: Good morning. Glad to be here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to get right to it. Due to the former president launching his campaign, the current president may also run for president, the attorney general said it is absolutely necessary to have a special counsel oversee this investigation into the classified documents found at Mar a Lago and what happened with trying to change the outcome of the 2020 election. If you were in that old role you once had, would you have appointed a special counsel?

ROSENSTEIN: You know, it’s easy to second guess from outside the department. I don’t know exactly what Merrick Garland knows, what information was available to him. He didn’t say that he was required to appoint the special counsel. He said that he thought it was the right thing to do. I believed the circumstances that I faced, that the appointment of Robert Mueller was the right thing to do with regard to the Russia investigation. But I think in this case, Merrick Garland clearly made a discretionary decision. The department had been handling this itself for two years. Could have continued to handle it itself. But he believed that this would help to promote public confidence. I think it remains to be seen whether that’s the case.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you wouldn’t have done this to yourself?

ROSENSTEIN: As I said, it’s it’s easy to second guess from outside. I think, you know, my inclination, given that the investigation had been going on for some time and given the stage which they’ve reached, is that I probably would not have, but I just can’t tell from the outside.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So from where you sit, does the appointment of a special counsel indicate at least a willingness on Merrick Garland part to go ahead with a prosecution, or is that overreading the decision?

ROSENSTEIN: I think what it indicates is that, you know, despite the fact the department has been at this for some time, almost two years on the January six investigation, close to a year, the Mar a Lago investigation, that they still believe that they have a viable potential case. It doesn’t mean they made a decision to go forward. But it certainly is an indication they believe it’s a possibility.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Now, one case that’s been going on longer, the investigation into Hunter Biden, which CBS has learned the FBI has gathered sufficient evidence to charge him with tax and gun related crimes, and that is before the U.S. attorney in Delaware. David Weiss, I believe you know him since he was a Trump appointee. Can he independently oversee this or do we need another special counsel?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, yeah, This investigation, as you said, has been going on for a very long time, which is not good for anybody. You know, it promotes conspiracy theories and suspicions. So my hope is the department will make a decision in the near future about whether to go forward. And hopefully that decision will be accepted by the public. I do believe that the U.S. attorney in Delaware- I know has the right experience to make that decision. So I think we can be confident that he’ll make the right decision in that case.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So not in that case. But let me ask you about the content of what is being scrutinized here with the former president. I know when you were U.S. attorney in Maryland, you dealt with individuals who took classified material, sometimes top secret, high level clearances and kept it at home. And you prosecuted them to the full extent of the law. Why should the president be any different?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, you’re right. We did have a lot of federal agencies in Maryland. And so we had a number of cases that came up during my 12 years as U.S. attorney, both under President Obama and President Bush. And we prosecuted those cases because we believe the facts justified it. Now, if the facts justify prosecution, President Trump, I think the department will make that decision. But we just don’t know from the outside. You know, there are extenuating circumstances when it’s the president, when there are a lot of staffers and lawyers involved. And so I think we have to wait to see how that all shakes out.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Former Attorney General Barr sat with PBS, and this was right before Merrick Garland’s announcement. But he said that to indict the Justice Department needs to show Mr. Trump was consciously involved. Let’s hear what he had to say.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: I personally think that they probably have the basis for legitimately indicting the press. I don’t know. I’m speculating, but but given what’s gone on, I think they probably have the evidence that would check the box. They have the case.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you agree?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, I don’t know. I think the Attorney General Barr, that is, you know, mentioned later in that interview that he was speculating. And I think it’s you know, there are multiple levels of issues that the department needs to consider, Margaret. Number one is, you know, is the evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction? Number two, is, is it an appropriate use of federal resources to bring that case and a case against a former president, obviously, with the extraordinary would raise unique concerns. And so I would hope that Merrick Garland and his team would be very careful about scrutinizing that evidence, not just checking the box, but making sure that they’re prepared to stand behind the decision that they make.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So when you say sustain a conviction, what do you mean by that? Does that mean looking at the courts that are likely to prosecute me, where would you prosecute this case, Florida or Washington, D.C.?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, it means ensuring that, number one, you get past a jury that has been able to persuade 12 random citizens that your case proves the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And number two, that it will be sustained or upheld on appeal. You know, the department sometimes brings cases in which they use novel theories that prevail in district court but are overruled on appeal if they’re to bring a case against the former president, you want to make sure they had a solid case and they were confident both of conviction and of prevailing on any appeal.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And that there wouldn’t be some national security implication such as political violence?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, you know, that’s and that’s a difficult issue, Margaret, as to whether or not the attorney general should consider the the potential for public unrest if they were to bring a case against the president,

MARGARET BRENNAN: It has to be considered.

ROSENSTEIN: I think it highlights the importance of the department ensuring that they have a solid case that is that they’re going to win a conviction and they’re going to be able to sustain an appeal. The circumstances, the stakes are higher than an ordinary case. You need to make sure if you bring that case that you can persuade people that is meritorious that you deserve to win.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that gets at the fundamentals, the distrust of institution where we are these days. But the former president is already said he’s not going to comply with any investigations. He said that on Friday. So what does this mean for the timeline? Are we running right into the 2024 presidential campaign?

ROSENSTEIN: I’m concerned about about the timing. Obviously, the the new special counsel, Jack Smith, needs to get up to speed in the case. He’s not even in the U.S. so he needs to come back and get engaged and supervise his team. He may need to bring in additional team members, people he trusts to review the circumstances. And then there are other potential delays as well. You know, one of the downsides of appointing a special counsel is the possibility of litigation over the validity of the appointment of the special counsel. And that has always been upheld by the courts. But litigation can impose additional delay. So I think there’s a fair chance that this is going to drag in well into the campaign season.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And then the question of whether the candidate wins or not. Rod Rosenstein, thank you for your insight and for joining us today.

ROSENSTEIN: Thank you.

{End Transcript}

Nov 19 2022

Nunes: Special counsel investigating Trump is criminal


Devin Nunes Published originally on Rumble on  November 18, 2022

Biden (Obama?) Directs AG Merrick Garland and the DOJ to Ramp up Attacks on President Donald Trump.

Nov 19 2022

Democrats Lied About Abortion Just to Win


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Nov 18, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Dick Armey is the former House Majority Leader and an Economist from Texas. He was elected to Congress in 1984,and arrived in Washington as a novice. Dick, being an economist, was a strong believer in the policies of Ronald Reagan. He was a staunch supporter of his policies, which were revolutionary for Washington. Because of his background, Dick quickly rose through the ranks of his party in Washington and became the primary author of the “Contract with America.” That was actually a collection of ten bills that would be brought up for a vote during the first 100 days of a Republican-controlled Congress.

Bill Archer served as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1970 to 2001. Bill was a lawyer and originally a Democrat who saw the light of failed Marxism and switched to the Republican Party in 1969. He later on represented Texas in the House of Representatives for 30 years, from 1971 until 2001. Bill’s last six years was as chairman of the most powerful committee, the House Ways and Means Committee.

Dick was for the Flat Tax and Bill was for the Retail Sales Tax. I found myself trying to negotiate between the two and that was the end of my effort to try to contribute in Washington and ended my naivety. I was sitting in Dick’s office and he said to me, “Marty, you know cycles.” He explained that he could not support Bill because without repealing the 16th Amendment that created the income tax, “when the Democrats get back in, we will have both.”

It was at that moment that I realized my effort was hopeless. I said: “Dick, you are right.”

An amendment to the Constitution may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose.

There is no way the Democrats were being honest. They knew they could NEVER create a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, gay marriage, or repealing the Income Tax. Such amendments are impossible for even getting passed in the House and Senate, they  still must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

Perhaps all the women who voted Democrat solely because of the lies they told about abortion will wake up and realize in politics, all is fair as in war. It NEVER has anything to do with truth.

I can run for office and promise whatever is fashionable to win. However, when you get to Washington, you are given a little greeting ceremony and then you are told that means nothing. You will be instructed what to vote for and that is why you see all these votes down party line. You NO LONGER vote for any politicians individually, you vote for the party and people in the backroom determine what will be the vote – the unelected bureaucrats.

So the Democrats outright lied to win. They could NEVER get abortion as a constitutional right – total BS just as repealing the 16th Amendment to end income taxes. We do not live in a Democracy for We the People have no direct right to vote on anything.

We live in a Republic which is becoming an Authoritarian Regime abandoning the foundation of civilization turning one group against another until the whole thing comes crashing down, Civilization exists ONLY when everyone benefits – not what we have today rising hatred and political arguments pitting man against his brother until mankind exists no more.

Nov 19 2022

Senator Rand Paul Questions FBI Director Chris Wray on the Construct of the Domestic Surveillance State


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 18, 2022 | Sundance

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) recently questioned FBI Director Chris Wray about the nature of how the FBI is receiving or retrieving surveillance information on domestic U.S. citizens, through the use of social media and electronic data collection.  {Direct Rumble Link}

At the core of the issue is a system created in the last 14 years where private social media companies and the intelligence apparatus, to include the FBI, have formed partnerships in the larger surveillance network.  The fact that FBI Director Chris Wray cannot and will not answer specific questions about the issues, only exemplifies the nature of the issue as it relates to unconstitutional violations of privacy.

There is ample & overwhelming evidence, much of it open-sourced, highlighting how federal law enforcement and social media companies are working together to assemble, filter and investigate data based on a collaborative agreement.  Legal protections for privacy are being destroyed in this assembly of constructs.  WATCH:

Paul: “Are you purchasing what is said to be anonymous data through the marketplace and then piercing the anonymous nature to attach individual names to that data?“

Wray: “I think it’s a more complicated answer than I could give here.”

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

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

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

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

The problems we face now as a country are directly an outcome of two very distinct points that were merged by Barack Obama. (1) The post 9/11 monitoring of electronic communication of American citizens; and (2) Obama’s team creating a fine-tuning knob that it focused on the politics of the targets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power.  Simultaneously the mission of the intelligence community now encompassed monitoring domestic threats as defined by the people who operate the surveillance system.

The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what the network of President Barack Obama did.

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

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

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

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